Maybe « it’s the economy, stupid » is in itself stupid.
We’re perpetually measuring short term gains over long term stability and then we complain when the bubble bursts.
Are we so irreparably self-centered that we can’t think beyond the time frame of our own tiny life?
17
Recessions in the us economy happen as a median average every 4 years. The longest time between is 8 years. The last one ended in 2009, 8 years ago. The stock market is buoyed by over a trillion placed on the national credit card with the republican Koch brothers tax plan. My decision is rather invest in the bubble, we are going to cash to cash out now and pay off liabilities, be ready to be leaner and meaner and liquid. We will see how it plays out but I expect after Trump crows in the SOU speech, we will all be eating crow later this year. P.S. Look up what economists were saying about the likelihood of a recession end of 2007. They all love short term obtuse metrics and ignore long term cycles.
12
I am certainly no economist. More of a doubting Tomasina. I remember the silly craze back in 1979 or 1980. Pyramid Parties. People flocked to "invest" and only the first ones at the top profited. Since then I have seen a few bubble and burst phases. Only a few actually really do well. Sure my retirement account went up significantly recent years, (Obama years). But it can and probably will go back down. Also, inflation happens and you can't buy much more. Clearly, the tax cuts will help a savvy few and then the rest of US pay. I would prefer a more stable economy. We clearly have a World economy now as well.
I hate the fact that we are so in love with coal and oil. We are going to miss the green revolution that will rise up all boats, (in cleaner water). Also not having Medicare for all is going to hurt this country's long-term economics. People work harder when healthy and not stressed out.
12
Why call this a « Trump tax cut »? It was conceived and negotiated by a Republican Congress with little input from Trump; his few proposals, like the border adjustment, were rejected early on; Trump was prepared to sign whatever Congress delivered since he had no policy of his own. Not much of a « Trump » tax cut.
12
The stock market does not equal the economy,
and Trump does not equal the stock market, ergo,
Trump does not equal the economy.
10
For all of you skeptical of Mr. Moore's analysis, please sell your stocks, liquidate your 401ks, sell your positions in your retirement funds to avoid the economic apocalypse that surely will befall the American economy under Mr. Trump eventually. Please make sure not to buy any stocks or mutual funds or add to your 401ks or retirement funds until there is a new president who is a democrat. Do not accept any bonuses or pay raises because they might be linked to Mr. Trump.
And of course it goes without saying that no democrats invested in the stock market since Mr. Trump was elected. They all held tight or sold. Yeah, that's right, the stock market rocketed up without them.
5
So he get some credit for continuing trends? And no bumps, really? Have you looked at the charts? Ok for his uneducated serfs, but not for us who can actually read tea leaves.
7
Everything looks rosy right now. So it was in 2006 when home prices were going through the roof and I was one of the beneficiaries. People talked of selling their homes just to et into something moe luxurious they really did not need. Among thje well to do man bought a sssecond Mac Mansion next door to have room to entertain or to invite friends to stay. And credit stores offered credit even if youj uldnot get credit elsewher liek banks. In Greece; 'm told middle class families were offered vacatiom loans. Those were tr days of the fat cows.Then the bill came due, from Spainto Kceland to Grece's statistocs offce,to Wall street's mortgage backed securities lack of egulation and supervision brought th house down.Anyone remember Greenspa saying the stock market did not need supervision no more, it had built in self corrective tools. .Then 2008 hit and Lehman Brotehrs went belly up.
3
What a surprise. A Senior Economic Advisor to Donal Trump thinks he should get more credit for the economy. Let me sit down.
The less stupid or biased may actually realize why the economy is doing so well- a plutocrat is in charge and his fellow plutocrats are celebrating. Those without impaired memories may recall the mystification on the part of economic experts over the last 5 years asking the question of why the record corporate profits were not resulting in more spending on the part of big business. Why the big banks, fully recovered thanks to Obama, were still not lending with any vigor. Hmmm. Wonder why?
Now that a white nationalist, anti-government, anti-social program, anti-regulation "Republican" is in office, along with a sycophantic Congress and incompetent Democratic leadership, Wall Street has never been cheerier. The economy is a big confidence game, and with the savvy rich rubbing their hands together while the uneducated "base" (and boy are they base) hopes and believes "...he's going to,make me rich too...", the confidence game is in full swing.
10
The economic boom created by President Trump and his brilliant tax cuts and undoing of Obama's regulatory orgy will last for generations!
Thank you, President Trump!!
4
The numbers for the real economy show no significant difference from the way the economy was performing under President Obama. The stock market is all about anticipation and it's never definitely prescient about how the real economy is or will be performing, but it reflects optimism amongst investors. The unemployment rate is about what any statistician would expect following the previous trending. The amount of capital remaining in savings and safe securities in lieu of investment in real economic endeavors indicates that the economy is still not growing enough to attract a lot of new investment activities. The tax cuts appear to have a likely temporary effect upon consumption but the cutting of government spending to make them possible means more expense for a significant proportion of consumers which may more than offset the savings from taxes. Basically, there is no reason to be optimistic about the economy for the meanwhile. The politicians want to use the economy for the election campaigns in the Fall but any fair consideration would make any such assertions more spin than fact.
7
Jesus another lying GOP stooge.
If the Economy were tanking Goobers would be screaming about Obama.
the fact is, we have been on the climb since Obama cleared much of the GOP mess.
Take just one stat that trump brags about. a 6.8% Black unemployment. When trump took over it was 7% trump achieved 2/10 of a point.
When Obama took over black unemployment was 16% he left it at 7%
Remember if a rep says something it's a lie or contains a lie.
There hasn't been a single GOP pres since the civil war that has left a good econ.
this one wont either
14
So a Heritage Foundation stooge thinks we're too dumb to know the difference between the stock market and the economy? Not surprising.
The fact that the Times gave this clickbait column inches? Also not surprising. Sad, but not surprising.
7
Hey, the economy's great- so who cares if my rights as a citizen were subverted by the biggest jerk the world has ever seen when he sold out the election to the Russians, which he obviously did? Certainly Stephen Moore doesn't care. It doesn't register a blip on his radar, and he's betting that the American people won't care either.
Did he make the argument that an economy can't be propped up by eating the nation's seed corn for eight years? No he didn't. But it can. And there is no doubt Trump will, and is.
Did he make the claim that Trump has the intelligence and judgement to see the nation through an economic trial if one should occur? No he didn't, because everyone who has any sense at all can see from the space station that such a claim is ludicrous.
Did he make the claim that these wondrous tax cuts will take the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor and inject it with steroids? No, because he probably doesn't see that as a bad thing, much as his platitudes about hoping the pay of middle-income workers will increase. Nor was there any comment on what inequality does to democracy by magnifying the already tremendous leverage and influence the wealthy have on the party he has cast his lot with.
To Stephen Moore, character doesn't count, nor does democracy. How could they, if he worked for Trump?
What matters to him is money & power. And he's hoping that's all that will count in the end. I sure hope he's wrong.
7
Counterpoints to Moore’s claims (2).
Walmart announces pay hike for employees and then cuts jobs. Here’s why. Webster 2018.01.14 (https://goo.gl/iExbRt)
“Shortly after Walmart announced higher starting wages for its hourly associates, the big box retailer decided to eliminate more than 1,000 jobs, primarily at its headquarters in Arkansas, according to published reports. Walmart is also believed to be closing 63 of its Sam’s Club warehouses, which could mean the elimination of up to 11,000 more jobs.
“Their timing is intended to support the political thesis that tax cuts will benefit workers, but many economists and other experts argue that most of the benefit will actually accrue to shareholders”.
Walmart has long been criticized for its lack of full-time opportunities for hourly workers and for funneling employees into government assistance programs. In 2014, the cost of public assistance programs given to Walmart employees was estimated at $6.2 billion. But that could change. To offset the debt created by tax cuts, Republicans are already looking for ways to reduce programs such as Social Security and Medicaid. In the end, an extra $20 to $40 a week is unlikely to make a massive difference in the lives of Walmart associates.”
7
Counterpoints to Moore’s claims (1).
Trump’s latest interview shows he’s not really the president Yglesias 2018.01.26 (https://goo.gl/w8FDD2):
“most people don’t appreciate the significance of Apple’s commitment to invest $350 billion in US manufacturing facilities. Most people probably don’t appreciate this because it isn’t true.
What Apple actually promised was to make $30 billion in domestic capital investments, most of which will be data centers, offices, and Apple Store real estate upgrades rather than actual manufacturing facilities. The $350 billion measure is a rough five-year estimate of Apple’s total “contribution” to the American economy. If you’re playing Infinite Golf on your iPhone and make an in-app purchase, that contributes to GDP. Since the contribution is routed through Apple, your spending becomes part of the Apple contribution to the American economy. It’s a semi-fake measure that’s basically a long-winded way of saying that Apple is a very big company.
$30 billion is a large number, but it’s both much smaller than $350 billion and not clearly any bigger than the amount of capital investment Apple has been making over the past few years anyway.
He also says the trade deficit with Mexico is $71 billion a year (it was $55.6 billion last year) and that the deficit with Canada is $17 billion (the real number is $12 billion).”
4
Maybe Apple is going to build the wall. It’s numbers like $20-30 billion that are needed, right?
1
No rational economist ever thought that tax cuts which made borrowing to run the government day to day, perpetual, and did not generate more and more investments in the real economy would accomplish anything but create a slow growth situation where profits were good but increasing of production would not occur. The free market wing nuts asserted that concentrating wealth in the hands of the very wealthy and of huge corporations would automatically create astounding growth from al the start ups and innovations in which the capital rich would invest in order to put their money to work. It was not based upon any kind of rational consideration, it was just a lot of speculation. When it did not happen, the Republicans could not admit that they were wrong without raising taxes and restoring regulations -- political suicide.
The economy has recovered from the great recession of 2008 but it has not grown sufficiently to provide ample income increases for the vast majority which would provide really good economic expansion in the U.S. The performance of the stock markets and the generosity of big companies will not persist because the economy is not growing fast enough and labor unions represent too little a proportion of the labor force. Higher growth that will persist and lead to higher growth cannot take place until the wealth earned can improve everyone's situation not just temporarily but permanently.
3
Apple has over $250B offshore that it now plans to repatriate for a $38B tax payment. Previously the tax liability was closer to $90B owed to the US taxpayers. The difference of roughly $50B in liability was just transferred to the US taxpayers. Wait! Covering that lost revenue is now my responsibility?
Thanks so much. Every man woman and child now gets a liability of $170 to pay for the tax Apple will no longer be paying America.
4
"If you can, put aside for a moment your opinion of Donald Trump’s words and actions...." Sorry, but no can do. Trump's words and actions are exactly why I know he has zero comprehension of economics 101, literally making it impossible for him to to guide his own business successfully, much less a nation's economy. Bankrupt four times----does that ring a bell, Mr. Moore?
5
President Trump is a great businessman. Great businessmen know when a business isn't working and get out early, just like great investors know when an investment isn't working and get out early.
1
I am predicting with confidence that's there no such thing as a Donlad Trump wins 2nd term regardless of how great the economy turns out. Mark. My. Words. Trump symbol is one of embarrassment-- that intense drama President. Think of Trump as the argument you had that left you feeling worse then when you started. The insults, the yelling, and name calling are so real. Voters may forget what Trump had said but they will not forget how Trump made them feel, i.e Haitians, Africans--he insulted the ENTIRE CONTINENT--that's huge! Trump is his owe worse nightmare and come next election Trump would be defeated like no President has been in the history of the United States. Mark. My. Words.
2
Mr. Moore says, "Trumponomics is Obamanomics in reverse."
I agree.
W Bush got a balanced budget, zero deficit, from Clinton.
W Bush handed Obama a whopping $1.4 Trillion deficit.
Obama got that down by almost 2/3 to $550 Billion.
And 20 million people got health care.
Trumponomics is about to reverse that.
The number of people with healthcare is about to go down.
And the deficit is going to go way up.
Come on Mr. Moore, it's just to easy picking apart this column. The Koch brothers expect something better for their money.
5
No need to read a heritage foundation writer who gave president Obama no credit for his economic policies after the great depression but now praises trump for the temporary improvements in the economy. More important, as Paul krugman has written with proof, the long term effects of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations have always resulted in painful financial effects for the poor and middle classes segments of the country.
8
I think the jury is still out on Trump's effects on the economy.
So far we see a continuation of the Obama recovery, higher stock prices
and lower bond prices.
When Obama took office the economy was in free fall and Obama turned it around.
I give Trump credit for not destroying the Obama recovery so far, but the jury is still out as to the longer term effects of Trump.
5
Let’s see now, last year’s 4th quarter GDP was 2.6%. That’s not the 3% economists predicted. And the 3% GDP promised by Trump? Not happening.
What about jobs? As noted in The Independent “In the year since he was elected, around 93,000 jobs have been recorded by the United States Department of Labor as lost to outsourcing or trade competition, which is slightly higher than the average of about 87,000 in the preceding half decade.”
In short, big hat but no cattle.
How about healthcare and the promise to repeal and replace with a better plan? Nope.
So basically Trump wants credit for not destroying the economic momentum he inherited from Obama while claiming the credit for what Obama accomplished. Sorry, not happening.
Well what his great tax plan? Other than it adds about $1.4 trillion to the deficit iand seeks to destroy the ACA witnout replacining it, it’s just great. And the largest beneficiaries are the wealthiest Americans who don’t need it. As for a lower rate for corporations, both parties have been for that for years, but the Republicans would never allow Obama a legislative victory under any circumstances.
Sorry. I will not give Trump and Republicans bragging rights for prior obstructionism and utter failure to acknowledge the prior administration. Trump can crow all he wants about how the sunrise is his doing. I would rather watch Seinfeld reruns.
5
We are well overdue for a correction, likely to be in the 20% range. When that happens, it will Obama's fault.
2
I live in two American playgrounds - Cape Cod Massachusetts and Tucson Arizona. Both traditionally are economic backwaters. Cape Cod is an hour and a half from Boston by horseback; two hours driving the Deval Patrick Super Highway System. Tucson is the opposite: a phenomenal road layout with 4-5 foot bike lanes on every street, extra left hand turn lanes, and extra right hand turn lanes, too. Neither area has gone anywhere economically during the Clinton-Bush-Obama outsourcing regime.
Now both regions are on the move. Wages are rising. Blue collar wages are rising fastest of all. Construction is expanding. And more than anything, people are living normal American lives again. Monday might be a drag. You have to go to work. But the days of worrying the layoff will hit, or the small business bank loan will be denied, or a new expensive regulation will go into effect, those days are over. If you work for the government, sure, now you’re the nervous one. Everyone else can relax.
1
They will wait until the Democrats take the Horse and Senate, and then the billionaires will pop the stock market bible taking their profits. And a few days or weeks later while the small investors are panicking, so that can buy everything at rock bottom process like they bought up all the houses they fraudulently foreclosed on during the last recession.
2
Trump's tax cuts and regulation relaxation are policies advocated by Republicans since the gilded age when monopolies and trusts were squeezing small businesses and farmers as cash cows and stifling innovations and growth which they did not control. Republicans thought that was good, that the more money made by these huge corporations the better. Finally, the Congress dominated by Republicans with a President who will go along gives Republicans a chance to undo all that disruptive legislation and policies which aimed to assure enough equality and due process to enable democracy to work by giving the losers equal access to the winners. The idea that the winners and losers in a country should have equal access to government and before the courts just made them unhappy, after all, the rich and the powerful had shown that they deserved to be rewarded not punished by government, and the lazy no-goods who could not become rich should not be interfering with the governing of the country -- a republic which was controlled by the winners not being misused by the losers. Like it or not, Republicans cannot grasp the this favoring of the powerful against the rest of us leads to a condition where liberty is determined by wealth and influence, not guaranteed to all by law.
When it hits the promised 4 % we can talk about it. The one time $1000 bonuses that corporations are giving is simply the price for the tax and regulatory giveaway that will enrich them far more than their employees. Let me know when folks in the 12k-50k range start getting their permanent raises.
5
Who is Stephen Moore?
Trump is still riding Obamas inheritance of a resession/depression,Two wars
And a Republican Racist Wall Of obstruction to oppose anything he recommended.
In spite of it ,and Trumps ignorant attacks,Obama’s actions have given us an economy that’s climbing.I wish no hardship on our economy simply because
The occupant of our White House is monumentally lacking in ability.His jealousy of Obama might turm him green instead of the orange of his fake
Tan.
His attacks on the FBI are going to be a part of his history of attempting to destroy our democracy along with his personal life filth.
6
No.
4
I....DON'T...THINK...SO....
4
There once was a miser who loved nothing in the world more than gold. He hoarded and grabbed all gold he could reach, and learned to shove and kick anyone in his way or anyone who might get some gold for himself, lessening the miser's share.
Though he hated to part with his beloved gold, even one farthing of it, he paid a wise man to explain to the people why it was better for them if he had all the gold (what would regular people ever know what to do with --gold--???), and another to build an enormous vault atop a mountain wherein to keep all his precious gold.
One day, his vault got so full it was about to burst, hurting the miser and showering gold on the minions below. He convened his wise men who thought and thought, and after much cogitation, advised "build another vault." Soon that vault got too full and also threatened to burst, showering the minions with gold.
After another conference (after 100 vaults threatened to burst), the advisors said, we lack materials to construct another vault. On each, install a valve that will release exactly so much gold as will avert an explosion. That gold shall flow down to the people, and they will be happy.
And miser (who by now was a king) was happy, and so were his subjects. Everybody was happy.
2
Do we ever stop a presidential election campaign. Economies are multi facet subject to a myriad of forces. The same people touting this as a "Trump" economy never gave Obama any credit for the nation coming out of a great recession. This economy is perhaps an Obama/Trump economy, also greatly impacted by world economic shifts. Let Trump take on infrastructure now that they've created another 1.5 trillion deficit to please the donor class. Let's just see if the economic benefits trickle down to main street.
2
The stock market gains could disappear in a few weeks, which means they are not very real. Things that are real (buildings, roads, knowledge, skills, organizations, people) are much stronger; it is harder to make them disappear. Parking the fruits of the hard work of the country in something that could just disappear (the value of stocks or vacation homes) rather than in flood prevention and computer skills and martial arts training and repairing national park nature trails is putting the intangible and unreal ahead of the tangible and real. A practical people like ourselves have really gotten ourselves royally mixed up to trade the real world for a bunch of computer bits, not even usable as wallpaper if their value collapses.
2
"if things were going badly, he'd be getting the blame"
No, he'd be blaming O'Bama.
7
It’s not booming that is fake news. Besides it’s Obama’s fault and especially Hillary’s fault that nobody gives me credit for jack.
1
What a moronic article. Any idiot knows that Trump does not control the economy. He has influence, but he neither should be blamed if it does (by some measures) badly or soars. The idea that the President has supernatural powers to control the largest, most complicated set of economic process on the planet is foolish and simplistic - and there are simpletons on both sides of the great left/right divide.
5
This is not an opinion piece. It's a propaganda piece, filled with obvious and demonstrable falsehoods.
Anyone vaguely acquainted with economics knows that an economy is a giant ship that takes a long time to turn. Due to Republican disfunction, it took nearly a year to pass an economic bill, so it will take longer than usual to determine the economic impact of this presidency. Any economist trying to give Trump credit (or blame) for the current economy either doesn't know how to do their job or is deliberately lying.
So why is this the top story on the front page of the New York Times?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the Times should be a place where those opinions need to have some basis in fact and logic. This piece should never have made it past the editor. The Times seems to have developed a focus on validating right wing ideology and creating false equivalency between Democrats and Republicans. It's gotten to the point where I have to wade through stories to try out what the actual facts are, even on supposedly straight news stories.
I think it's time to cancel my NYT subscription and try to find where journalism has gone.
2
Oh, stop. The Grand High Exalted Mystic Economic Genius inherited this great economy from "the black guy."
3
What a load of partisan garbage. I would expect no better from the Heritage Foundation or any republican, or anyone involved in the Trump campaign.
If there's a dumber propagandist on the planet, Stephen Moore will lose the title. how you give a soapbox to liars like this suggests that you've given up trying to be authoritative or substantial, and now The Times tries to do its job by observing with despairing passivity as toxic shills like Moore, Arthur Brooks, and Bret Stephens this ask us to be "perfectly honest" while they lie in your pages.
Have you given up being trustworthy? Does "All the news that's fit to print" now include all the prevarications?
Qnly a fool would think that an economy has point-wise in time causality.
Any student of economics knows that a president has minimal effect on the overall economy. Presidents ride the economic cycle just like everyone else. But we will forever see spin pieces like this one, trying to assign credit or blame to one president or another. Ignore these articles, people. Better yet, NYT should stop wasting valuable space on this nonsense.
2
Let me quote one of Mr. Trump's predecessors: " Its the economy, stupid"!
Heritage propaganda as usual.
1
We could have spent half of that 1.5 trillion on infrastructure, instead of tax cuts for the very people that need them the least. Government infrastructure spending goes directly to middle class jobs and domestic employers. Lower and middle class employees than tend to rapidly spent those paychecks locally. Presto, more domestic economic growth. Please explain the economic theory that says an already rich guy getting a 80k tax cut puts more back into the US economy that a newly minted worker getting a paycheck does.
2
During the all important primaries PAUL KRUGMAN DECLARED
TRUMP IS RIGHT ON ECONOMICS
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-o...
To shoot down Jeb!
Turned out, Mr. Krugman was correct
We will remind you about this article if things suddenly look less rosy. That may look like a great slogan for Trump right now, but it easily be the headliner of the Democratic nominee in 2016 if any of a few thousand things were to go wrong. Sooner or later SOMETHING always does....
Let's wait and see where we end up in Trump's year 3; or at the end of his 2nd term if he does get reelected.
I suspect a lot of us will wish G.W.Bush had a 3rd term.
Mr. Trump and the Republicans just finished borrowing 1.5 trillion dollars to goose the economy. Of course things look rosy. But soon, any day now, the Obama momentum will wear off. You should measure the "Trump Economy" starting now, at the one year mark. See what you have in a year. Then report.
5
By Moore’s own admission this economy is “red-hot”, which looks good for the very short term but often flames out.
What we are seeing is a surge and not a sustainable economic trajectory that can last.
It is the DJT presidency in a nutshell!
It looks good, but once you understand the likelihood of is its demise you can see an economy that will implode soon. Red hot is a short high that DJT will continue to reference but red hot economy’s are subject to adjustments. It’s an economic certainty!
DJT has proven that he will not be able to pick up the pieces when the economic success that Obama created starts to wither.
You are a well-known hack with no credibility or actual knowledge of economics. Go away and get some hack stock market show with Larry Kudlow on CNBC.
2
When the current business cycle comes to the same conclusion it always comes to-- a stock market crash and mass unemployment-- I assume Trump will gloat about his responsibility for that? "The mean bull market since 1871 is 67 months" ... that day is coming... and if history teaches anything its that that day will come during Trumps 1st or 2nd term (if there is one...) .
2
Why did the Times print this piece of neocon garbage ? Because within the next 5 years when the economy crashes under the weight of the federal deficits and lack banking regulations as it did during the last decade under Bush, neocons like Moore will blame the Democrats.
1
I can't believe I just read a Stephen Moore editorial. Let me rephrase that: I can't believe my beloved NYTimes published an editorial by Stephen Moore.
I've trusted the NYTimes. I've defended the NYTimes. And you repay me by publishing an editorial by a man that sold what little credibility he ever had, years and years ago?
I genuinely appreciate the commitment to fairness and the publishing of multiple views by the NYTimes. But there are limits. And Stephen Moore has proved for many, many years to be beyond the limits. Not to mention, he's always wrong.
Don Brown
12
We haven't had it this good since President Clinton was in office. So, expect articles of impeachment to be drawn up any day, and expect them to fall on deaf ears. Let the good times roll.......
1
Yes, and the fact that economies are surging worldwide, I'm sure that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the improved economy. The fact that President Obama presided over the country during a worldwide economic downturn and that we recovered better and faster than any other economy--that had nothing to do with him, right? Those tax cuts are one month old--one month!--and already mega-corporations have built factories and relocated workers in response. It's a veritable miracle, with Daddy Trump as the savior. It is absurd to believe first year economy had nothing whatsoever to do with his predecessor.
10
Trump + Bubbles = Trubles.
3
"several holes in this theory" then he goes on to list one thing: the economy was "decelerating" at the end of Obama's presidency, for which he lists a single metric that is meant to stand in for the whole economy. The fact that net neutrality protections were just repealed was not even Trump's doing, nor would his tax bill, that literally just happened, be sufficient to explain the economic situation of 2017, nor would his "policies" on climate change or health care. His basic health care idea is: "get rid of Obama's even though I don't have a better idea."
Mr. Moore hasn't even remotely shown his conclusion to be accurate, at least not with the bare-bones argument given here.
1
I agree with Moore. There is much I dislike about Trump but his team got the corporate tax break right.
I also appreciate seeing pieces like this in the Times. Balance is good.
5
Need I remind that Obama also proposed a corporate tax cut not dissimilar to the one that this Republican Congress finally passed. It was the latter's refusal to do any business whatsoever with President Obama--regardless if they agreed with him or not--that delayed it to this time. But, of course, the stupid man on the street thinks this came about as an idea from Trump. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public,, something Trump has been proving his entire career.
4
Read the comments posted after your to really know what’s going on.
Those who have stocks have a lot to be happy about, but how many millions of Americans are being left out? Trillions of dollars were lost in the Great Recession and millions of Americans divested their stock portfolios in panic selling or to pay the bills. How many of them got back in and rode this bull market? I would venture that millions never reinvested or had the money to reinvest, while the wealthiest Americans had a cushion to fall back on during the recession and were able to buy stocks at bargain prices. Now the already wealthy are wealthier. Those who are seeing their jobs come back and wages go up may be tempted to buy stocks now. I'm afraid they will be buying the top and will get burned once again.
1
You can just buy the indexes and stick with it. There are lots of liberal and conservative advisors telling the uneducated class to buy and sell at the wrong times, when they should not ever be buying and selling ever. Then again that would stabilize the markets, but eliminate advisors! Would not be much work for Moore or Krugman. Ah let's be real most of the middle class everyone wants to "save" would rather watch sports or reality TV. Not learn about economics....
1
if working people were today earning wages even equal to what they earned around 1970, that would count as an improvement.
if today's workers had steadily improved their economic lot at the pace their parents enjoyed in the 1950s and 60s, that would be an achievement.
what you claim as achievements are just talking points. meaningless and phony.
and tone deaf.
2
I remember Moore saying how the unemployment rate was fiddled with when it was going down under Obama. But now with Trump’s in the White House all the economic stats are real again. What a difference skin color makes.
Sad how racism informs all the decisions the all white Southern fried GOP makes. But then again the GOP is a racist party. That’s why it picked a racist like Trump as it’s Leader.
4
Yeah Black vs Orange.
Heritage Foundation. Should have guessed. No, sir, it is NOT Trump’s economy now. Read Jim Campbell. He’s a well-respected conservative Republican political scientist who will set your uninformed behind straight.
1
Sure, why not? But you seem to think that it excuses the misogyny, racism, multiple accusations of sexual assault, attacks on gay/trans rights, almost superhuman pig ignorance of everything that doesn't have the word 'Trump' in it, the lying, the undermining/slandering of the FBI and DOJ, the awe-inspiring collapse of the USA's standing in the world or the fact that he, like you Stevie, supported a child-molester for the US senate.
Similar economic growth to what Obama achieved (but without doing any hard work to get it) doesn't excuse any of it.
1
Wrong wrong wrong. The Oval Office has little sway in regards to how economies do. Just another way to mislead the public. The Fed has a hand but in capitalism it’s the free market, restrictions and ease of doing business that directs the economy and markets. Please NYT, stop publishing articles like this. It’s misleads your readers and shows little knowledge of economics.
1
We mock those who claim the president —any president — gets credit for a booming economy. Because everyone knows that they have little control over the economy or most domestic matters.
When we mock President Trump it is because *he* is the one using the economy as a scorecard. He is a liar and a hypocrite about the president’s effect on the economy.
Don’t insult our intelligence with this essay.
4
Back in 2014, The Kansas City Star, decided to stop publication of Moore's work due to inaccurate statements. Four years later, the NYT opens its pages to his opinions. Perhaps I'm subscribing to the wrong paper.
1
This is satire, right?
1
The economy grew at a rate of about 3 percent in the last three quarters, something that economists said was very unlikely just a year ago.
Here is what Paul Krugman had to say about the economy when Trump was elected
"Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never."
Why:
"Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight years after the great financial crisis."
"So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight."
2
It's trumps economy when his policies take force. Nothing has yet, tho' the tax changes will begin churning of accounts and accountants big time. Thanks, Barack Obama, for your steady hand and classy personal conduct, and an economy humming for now. Hope Trump does as well.
8
45 should credit for not 'messing up' the economic recovery initiated by Obama.
3
Eight straight years of economic growth under Obama, never heard a peep from conservatives about our strong economy. Trump is on record calling our economy a disaster, now we are to trust a bankrupt casino owner and traitor. Never, not until he shows us his taxes.
7
Pillaging and plundering the people and the planet are easy ways to advance the economy. It is simply STEALING from the FUTURE. TRUMP will be gone or dead by the time the "feel good" period of benefit is gone - replaced by the pay back period that the PEOPLE and PLANET may not be able to recover from.
6
The bush economy did ok for awhile too. Then all his shenanigans exploded and the economy tanked. Apparently we learned nothing.
5
Maybe a better question to ask is if a president ever deserves credit/blame for a strong or stingy economy
If you claim wages have been stagnant for 15 years and Obama deserves credit for the robust economy does that imply Obama created policy’s that caused wages to be stagnant?
In the end, I think we assign too much credit or blame to Presidents for anything other than having a cheerful disposition.
1
Give credit where credit is due. Trump didn't make up these stock market gains. Trump didn't make up these unemployment figures. Trump didn't force Apple to bring $250 billion back to the United States.
Attacking Trump on the economy, at least at this point, is folly, and a dangerous game for Democrats to play, which is why Democrats, save for folks on the fringes, aren't playing it. If you're going to get rid of Trump, it's going to have to be via some means other than criticism of the economy under his watch. That dog won't hunt. Frankly, most everyone is better off economically today than they were a year ago, and people who've seen their retirement accounts swell during the past year aren't going to give two hoots about people who say "Pay no mind to what your IRA is doing, listen to me instead."
5
Big tax cut reduces revenue and increases the need for Federal borrowing.
How are you going to get people to buy more Federal debt?
Lower the price of Treasury bonds (raise their yield) and people will buy more Federal debt.
As a result of the big tax cut is a bond market falling out of bed.
Who loses?
Mostly people in retirement who own bonds.
There is an enormous number of bonds which are losing their value as a result of the tax cut.
So its robbing Peter to pay Paul. Its certainly not true that everybody is better off than before.
It is "Trump's Economy" but current is just part of it before it bursts and it will crash ugly...
Its Trumps economy because he's been taking ownership of it for 2 years now! Besides running immigrants out of town, he heavily ran on how smart he was and how ONLY he had the right formulas to turn the economy around to fulfill one leg of his MAGA cry.
Yes, its Trumps, as he's said so. His feet are near the fire, and should be held there...
Mr. Moore seems to run on the premise that all reasoning stems from "it's the economy, stupid." Some recent elections indicate that may not be the case--we can all hope it takes more than money (most of which goes to the upper 10%--and I am one of those) to win a major election with the current guy in the White House. We can hope that a pathological and compulsive liar cannot win re-election--even with the aid of the Electoral College--by touting some one-time bonuses from big corporations. We can hope the guy can't be re-elected by simply proclaiming that everything is "great, and all because of me."
About 50% of the country owns stocks--the market boom (until it ends) will leave the rest even further behind. Many will not be helped that much with the individual tax cuts, which are far more problematic than the corporate rate reduction to 21%. The Republicans are undermining basic health care for the nation and trying to raid Medicaid coffers to enhance the wealth of the "upper crust."
To say that our minimum wage system i dysfunctional is an understatement. Whatever Fiat-Chrysler and Apple may say, any clear benefit of any presumed action is many years off. As the rest of the world catches up to us in terms of living standards, it might be no surprise that jobs return here, if the cheap overseas wage benefits begin to wane.
The unemployment figures most certainly are an extension of the policies from Obama's presidency, that had to deal with the "great recession."
2
Yup year 1 the economy looks good. If he gets re-elected it would be interesting to see if the djia would hit 50,000 (250% growth) needed to match the obama years. Keep in mind we also didnt have to sacrifice education, environment, to get that improvement with obama. Time will tell if these tax cuts were the burning of America's furniture to save costs on heat or if they actually will stimulate the growth the markets are projecting. I think we are due for a recession and one thing about these roaring Republican bull runs, is they are always followed by a crash.
2
Stephen Moore misused BLS employment data to lie to readers of the Kansas City Star back in 2014. The editors demanded an accounting which he could not give, other than to claim an unlikely mistaken use of the tables, so he was banned from the Star and its sister newspapers. You can be sure that, if the stock markets tank, consumer spending collapses, and millions are laid off, Moore will write a column entitled, "It's Chuck Schumer's and Nancy Pelosi's Economy Now."
4
Yet another of our President's advisors is a proven liar. Surprise, surprise.
When are the Trump Companies going to bring their many businesses back to the USA?
1
I agree with Mr. Moore based on the simple reason that I support President Trump and I do not support Obama and I despise Clinton. What more needs to be said? Nothing. Thank you.
3
So, you're a mindless ideologue. That's nothing to be proud of.
1
What you are describing is the simplest, even childlike sort of tribalism.
That has nothing to do with thinking.
1
First off, to say that if things get rosier he'll get reelected, is putting the cart before the horse. Stephen Moore, also misses the point, the economy would have done better had the GOP not been the party of no. Stephen also overlooks this tax "reform" as merely shifting the corporate tax burden to the middle class. And so what, a car company wants to move a line here, with 2,000 jobs, in reality that's not a lot.
This is just the crumbs that corporations are throwing to the working class, we're still working for pay that is at 1999 levels. Our pay hasn't kept pace with corporate CEOs. And when you dig really deep all the regulations that were rolled back will again be at the expense of american workers. It's nice that coal has hired 500K, but the reality is, coal isn't king anymore and the mining boom will be short lived.
It's to bad Stephen Moore is this short sighted that even he isn't willing to admit that but for the GOP, our economy would have been growing at much faster clip, and let's not forget the devaluing of the US dollar. I will give credit to trump if and when this 4% growth happens, it's easy to explain the 3% in the first year of Trumps presidency with a huge tax breaks, and the repatriation of billions of dollars, I expect corporations to invest in their own companies. The 400 on the Forbes list have 2.68 TRILLION in wealth, that's more than the GDP of Great Britain, the worlds 5th larges economy. Moore overlooks that fact too.
7
I take issue that those of us with 401k's and other retirement plans are benefiting from this hyperactive stock market. I'm not sure I agree as I don't have direct access to that money (I'm 38; a lot will happen in the next 30 years). If anything, an inflated stock market is bad for people who make regular contributions to retirement savings plans - we are "buying high". Inevitably the market will correct (translation: crash) and my 401k will go with it. What the inflated market does mean is that the cost of shares in funds is higher, so I'm able to buy less with the same contribution. But, when things do go south, someone will be walking away with a fat stack of cash, it just won't be the people who contribute regularly to their retirement savings.
6
If you feel that way, then why don't you rebalance and go into cash and bonds. You realize that you do have control over the allocation of your accounts.
2
Two words for you: Sugar High (or nicotine, smack, whatever). And what will be the LONG TERM costs of deregulation in general, and in particular, cutting environmental regulations that protected the health of our citizens? Deaths, higher medical expenses, lost wages, etc., and that's in just ONE sector. I'm starting to feel sick already. And that's before I start thinking about the looming global disaster of climate change.
And NO, I CANNOT NOR WILL NOT "put aside for a moment your opinion of Donald Trump’s words and actions." What will be the other long term costs of this lunatic's reign? Unfortunately, I will probably live long enough to see them.
6
It would be interesting to see an economic analysis of the national economy with the astronomical costs of climate change factored in as losses; the flooding in Houston, the hurricanes in Florida, USVI and Puerto Rico, the wildfires in California, and now the mudslides as a result of the fires. Such an analysis would dilute much of the self-congratulation of Trump’s admirers and, of course, it will never happen, since climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.
2
This is why Trump should be terrified. The economy is humming (no matter who gets the credit) and his approval rating is terrible.
What happens when there is an international crisis or the economy starts to stagnate?
4
"Senior fellow at the Heritage foundation"
Well, that explains a lot.
Would someone please explain to Heritage and all their "thinkers" that:
1) Growth is not synonymous with economic health. That is why we are simultaneously witnessing record highs in equity markets and record lows in real wage growth. Pointing to GDP growth as an indicator of economic strength ignores ENORMOUS economic crises on our doorstep - most notably household (specifically student) debt - as well as begs the question of, "who benefits?"
2) The ultimate economic question of our time (nay, all-time) is not one of *growth* but one of *sustainability*. The more these fools proclaim the gospel of growth, the more readers and laypeople will simply assume that growth is a good end in and of itself. This ignores questions of environmental harm, commodity and wealth distribution, and ownership ethics that are *fundamental* to our economic future, both as a nation and as a civilization.
The question we should all be asking isn't "is the economy growing under Trump," but "is the economy becoming more sustainable under Trump." Based on his utter evisceration of the EPA (seriously, google this...you will be astounded by the sheer brazenness of it all), his general dismissal of climate science, and his economic policies (read: tax reform, attempted ACA repeal) it is fairly clear that not only is he doing nothing to address the most fundamental economic issues of our time, he is actively making them worse.
9
To the headline: NO! The growth rate for 2017 isn't that much different than the previous years' growth rates. The labor market outcome is a continuation of the previous years' outcomes. Voters are actually quite smart; they understand this. By the way, Moore conveniently forgets that the Volker led FED began to cut interest rares in August of 1982 when he claims the economy began to boom from Reagan era tax cuts. Sigh.
1
When an airliner takes off, do you thank the pilot? The sheer thrust coming out of the engines? The workers who constructed the plane? The oil companies for extracting and refining the jet fuel? The air traffic controllers for their guidance? The mechanics for their upkeep of the plane?
Those who insist on giving inordinate credit to presidents, whether of the left or the right, are like those people who pretend that it only take a pilot to make a plane fly.
4
A President is like a quarterback - he assumes too much credit for a win and too much blame for a loss. The President also doesn't control the purse, Congress does. And they spoke loudly with the tax cut.
The markets will get a big boost this quarter, and maybe the next then flatten out. A decline is inevitable as valuations are stretched. Hopefully it will be orderly not a waterfall. Next year, the full extent of the tax cut will reveal itself. Until then, enjoy the good times if you're benefitting and work for change if not.
Regradless, those who like Mr. T will give him credit - those who don't won't...
2
It's still Obama's economy. He left it strong enough to continue its growth despite Trump, but it won't last forever.
5
The lag time from Obama's policies contributed to the economy. The jobs creation rate is the same as Obama's. Cash rich corporations are now offering crumbs, in the form of small bonuses, they should have been paying this whole time. How about a raise? Chrysler building a plant-how long has that been in planning? The stock market is a fixed lottery. The Board of Directors and managers own controlling stock. They determine how much stock is allowed to be sold. They decide on dividends. They control every aspect of the stock and they produce the income staements and balance sheets. Those bonuses will lower their taxes. The other owners of stock are stockbrokers. You can't own the stock. You just pay stockbroker to play the market. Corporations that left America moved plants because they didn't want to pay fair wages. They will not be back because if a lower tax rate. Trump's policies will catch up with the next President three years from now.
2
"If you can, put aside for a moment your opinion of Donald Trump’s words and actions and let’s be perfectly honest: One year into his presidency, could the economy be any rosier?"
One year into his Presidency, the Obama economy continues its recovery from the last disaster, visited upon it by the last Republican administration. Give it another year of increased income inequality, reduction of federal revenue, rising healthcare costs due to the Republican administration's sabotage of the ACA, raids on our "entitlements" coming right up...and I submit you'll be singing a different tune.
1
Inevitably, the market will correct itself downward, Trump came in at the end of bull run, he has passed little legislation except a tax cut and getting a Supreme Court, along the way he had damaged our democracy, disgraced the office of the President, and likely destroyed not only the conservative movement but the Republican party as a result. If Trump cannot get over 40% approval with the economy humming, what will happen when it corrects itself? Having to accumulate so much debt to survive the Bush recession, there is little in reserve to handle the next one.
1
No, he should not get credit. He got on the roller coaster when it was going uphill pretty fast. Obama took over at the depths of a recession and righted the ship. The stock market gained more in Obama's first year than it did in Trump's first year.
What did Trump do to improve the economy that he should get credit for?
The market is up now based on the false believe that tax reductions improve the economy. Increasing debt used to be the Republicans "Never" stone. Now so long as their Wall Street "businessmen" get to line their pockets, it is no longer an issue.
Economies do not turn around in months so the majority of the credit goes to eight years of tough work over vicious Republican opposition to get the economy rolling. Trump is the beneficiary. However, he is rabidly pro big business so they are reacting accordingly. Good for business, good for Wall Street. Main Street not so much.
1
So, to understand Mr. Moore, it was unfair to blame Reagan for the economy in his first 18 months and, at the same time, it is unfair to not credit Trump for the economy in his first 18 months.
If things are that great, should we be cutting taxes on the rich further, or reducing our debt? Or is it fiscal conservatism good only for the poor people, and when a democrat is in office?
1
Then I'm assuming that whenever the next major economic correction or downturn comes, no matter how severe, it will also be credited to the president.
1
The global economy is showing encouraging growth, is it not?
Does Trump deserve credit for all of that, too?
1
1) If you draw graphs from the previous presidency and the lines don't change much into the new presidency, then that president cannot take credit for the consequences.
2) The Dow volume is a terrible indicator of economic well being of the country. great indicator for billionaires, though.
1
If the author deliberately ignored the influence of recent global economic growth on the current US economy just to overstate some Trump initiatives as direct cause for the GDP numbers, he's being disingenuous. If he does not recognize that growth as one of the key factors behind the situation, he's ill informed.
Either way, the arguments used to support his premise are not substantive enough to persuade anyone with a little understanding of economics that they are valid. The result is a fluff piece that reads like it was directed at the same "audience of one" Stephen Miller spends most of his time pandering to.
2
Larry Kudlow has been saying it for years. Cut corporate taxes and the economy will take off. That, and a friendlier regulatory environment is behind our new-found economic strength.
I think it's very hard to convincingly argue that Trump is not responsible for this.
As a trader and an investor, I shudder to think where we'd be if HRC was elected. She's hated on Wall Street. And for good reason.
2
"But few presidents can claim to have presided over the kind of economy the United States is enjoying now".
Oh Stephen, you are a treat. If by "presiding' you mean "just happen to be in office when policies enacted prior to your election were implemented", yes. The fact is, all of the Trump economic measures have mostly not taken effect yet, and could not be responsible for the current economy.
3
trump - or any President - only gets credit for those aspects of teh economy for which they have done something to influence. In addition, for example, the rate of positive change is less under this administration than for a comparable period last administration, then no, no positive accolades are warranted. For example, market performance is great, but the rate of growth over the last year was lower than that in Obamas first term; and there is some debate as to how much influence a POTUS has over market at all. So as to market performance, Trump scores a mediocre at best. That is one example.
"Just in case anyone missed this" at the bottom of the opinion:
"Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign"
and who regularly enjoy their own brand of fake news.
1
It was President Trump's economy since he won the election. As soon as the votes were counted, America knew and rejoiced at the fact that Obama's disastrous Big Government taxes and mindless regulations were history.
America is Open for Business!!
1
"...new hiring from Disney, Home Depot, JPMorgan Chase, FedEx and other companies."
Uh...its hiring season for Disney, Home Depot, and FedEx...among most other service and/or retailers. So their announcing they're hiring is pretty specious...same thing every year at this time.
We are not even close to that moment in time to see if the long stagnated middle/lower-class, unskilled jobs wages actually went up enough, if at all, to give praise to these Corp tax breaks.
Its a little tiring to keep reading about the hopeful expectations that all these now awesome, magnanimous Corps are maybe, gonna do something for their workers. Especially when they could have been giving out bonuses, and raising wages all along as they recorded record profits. Now they are being applauded for not yet doing something...typical Conservative hot-air, blustering.
Call back when the proof of "They did it!" comes around...
"One year into his presidency, could the economy be any rosier?"
Yes. I'm still waiting for the promised, and vaunted, trickle down. But, then again, I waited for 8 years of Reagan and 12 years of the Bushes.
Did rather well during Clinton's 8 years and broke even during Obama's, 'tho...
2
''The only thing Trump has done for America is prove that it's better to be "lucky than good".
His luck will run out...be patient.''
I don't know what others call this but I call it treason to actually HOPE the present POTUS and the US does badly just so your 'team' can win. I suppose it fits in with the present strategy of a MSM coup to get rid of the man who stole it from 'her' by winning the election the way ALL presidencies have been won, via the electoral college, while cheating Hillary and the DNC sabotaged Sanders in fact (see wikileaks and Donna Brazile's very revealing but strategically ignored by the 'tell it the way we want you to think it' MSM spin).
Ouch I just stubbed my toe. Damn that Putin guy!! It's ALL his fault!! Or was it Bernie, white women, the electoral college, the fawning MSM, racists, the FBI, wikileaks, lazy coloreds, Huma Abedin, etc etc etc.
Over one year since the election and the losers STILL want to call foul even though it was Hillary herself who told Trump to NOT do so (it 'would be dangerous to question the result of the election'.) The hypocrisy and calumny here is truly toxic as this paper, the MSM and the DNC have done NOTHING else, even as they continue to push away Warren or Sanders to get either Hillary or one of her teams younger war mongering Wall Street oligarchs in!
I was dead against Mitch McConnell and the RNC when they attacked Obama inc Trump for pushing the 'Birther' nonsense. 'I'm with Michelle'. Don't sink to trash!
2
Amen
Trump wins again
1
Any actions by a president and congress may look very good in the short term but are a disaster in the long term. Tax cuts and the repeal of Glass/Stiegel for example are similar to having sex with a beautiful woman only to learn later that she gave you an STD
3
A black man labors for 8 years to fix our economy, and a white guy wants credit. typical.
5
Stephen Moore, from the Heritage foundation and a Fox News contributor, I wonder if you are spinning this nonsense? maybe, huh,,,,
1
Why does the Times waste valuable space on this empty suit?
3
You know what I do with the froth on my beer glass? I blow it off.
Same will happen with this froth.
2
The leftists, including this newspaper, have invested a great deal in their "Resistance" movement. Thus any fact which challenges their "Trump is Hitler/Fascist/Racist/etc" is immediately discarded. Reasoned opinions fall on blind eyes and deaf ears here.
3
Go back to WSJ.com with this garbage.
1
Oh my, the liberals won’t be happy....another opinion piece by the NYTs that will force them to step out of their liberal echo chamber.
4
Who in the world thought that it was a good idea to give valuable oped space at the Times to this piece of piffle?
Anyone who knows anything about the economy knows that presidents are given too much credit or blame on economic performance, that there is a significant lag time between a president's assumption of office with subsequent policy changes and measurable effects on the economy and that judging a president's economic stewardship after the first year of a term, affording blame or credit, is a worthless exercise undertaken only by political hacks seeking cheap political points. If this last were not the case, January 2009-January 2010 would have doomed Obama to being the worst president on the economy in US history.
What is damning for the editors at the Times is that Moore knows and admits all of these things in his piece. And, yet, the Times finds suitable for publication such an obvious, odious bit of political fluff devoid of worthy ideas or arguments of any persuasiveness or consequence.
Absurd.
1
Sounds like you are trying hard to convince yourself that Stephen Moore is wrong. Don't pop a blood vessel doing it.
1
So all of this growth and only for the low, low cost of regulation, health care, net neutrality, the environment, and what will be an even bigger deficit down the road? Yeah, you're right I will give him credit for that.
1
A booming economy at a very high price borne of policies that prioritize profits over people, and profits over planet. A short- sighted strategy indeed.
6
What about the people investing in the markets to save for retirement and college?
And, what "high prices" are you exactly referring to and please explain how a booming market exacts such a price, please.
2
The removal of regulations, particularly for manufacturing, oil, and other mass productions services has the potential to severely harm the environment.
Allowing offshore oil drilling may seem great in the short term as it provides some economic boost and jobs... but I don't think people off the coast of Oregon will appreciate oil spills damaging the sensitive ecosystems there.
Lucky for Trump no off shore drilling will be allowed off the coast of Florida for the sake of his exclusive resort.
The rich will have the power to avoid environmental decay and pollution, and leave the poor and middle class to wallow in it.
i disagree with the premise that Trump should get credit for our current strong economy. Nothing in the economy is moving in a significantly different trajectory than it was at the end of Obama's term.
The one exception is the roaring stock market, and I do attribute that to Trump. When you add more than a trillion dollars in new debt to fund massive tax cuts for corporations, stocks will rise. When you enact corporate welfare policies through deregulation (for instance, shifting the costs of climate change and pollution from the private sector to the public sector, or shifting in a similar direction the costs associated with financial crisis risk), corporate costs will certainly go down, profits will go up, and therefore stocks will rise.
But currently rising stocks only help existing shareholders. Anyone buying stocks now should expect lower future returns by virtue of the higher prices being paid. And nothing is free. Just because banks and other financial companies are no longer being charged "insurance premiums" for the systemic risk they bring to the financial system, doesn't mean the costs are actually zero. Just because energy companies and others are no longer required to pay for the damage they are causing to the environment (immediate damage to water and air quality, plus long term effects of global warming), doesn't mean the costs don't exist.
So don't get too excited. Deregulation hasn't lowered costs; it's just changed who pays for them.
19
The economy is increasing at the expense of...(choose one)
1. the environment
2. worker safety
3. privacy
4. health care
5. Clean air and clean water
6. etc.
There are some things that are more important than money.
25
Can't choose one since they all apply.
3
I have news for you: when people can't pay for their mortgages and feed their families, they could care less about the 6 items you listed.
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!
1
Kindly present any evidence that any of these goals is compromised. I mean actual evidence, not just fear-mongering
1
Sure, the stock market is up, the economy is up. But at what cost? Most of the gains are the result of Trump's "deregulation," which is an attractive concept until you consider the regulations he's rolling back. Stocks are up because the bad guys know they aren't going to get busted; industry is excited because the sensible rules being put into place under Obama have been repealed.
Long story short: the economy was WAY up in 2006, too, and look where it got us. We shouldn't be rejoicing over the stock market surge--we should be wincing at its inevitable fall.
12
I wonder if this dude was making such statements when the market was climbing under Obama.
And, who are the "bad guys"? The middle class that is investing in the market to save for retirement and their kids' college education?
Would you prefer the market to tank?
The answer that the entire left won't admit to: YES! They want the market come crashing down.
Well, guess what? There will be a lot of boats that will be rocking if and when that happens.
2
Mr. Moore errs. "Ultimately, the most important statistical indicator for Mr. Trump will be wages for middle-income workers" which he predicts will rise as unemployment falls. Some rise will be a natural consequence, sure, but so will profits, bonuses, etc and it is hardly a natural consequence that middle-income wages which have been "flat in real terms for 15 years" (actually since the 1970s) will take a higher share of national income. Inequality will remain and middle-income workers will be no better off.
4
I would like to know the exact date that Mr. Moore believes that credit (or blame) for the economy shifted from President Obama to Donald Trump. No exact date ? Many economists seem to put it at about the one year mark, which means 45 would have credit for the last 29 days only. Not much to go on.
9
By not addressing the growing crisis of climate change Trump is creating a massive public infrastructure debt that will be paid in the future one way or another. Just the cost of protecting Manhattan from flooding would wipe away any economic gains that the President might claim, to say nothing of protecting all of our naval bases and other coastal cities.
You claim that cutting back environmental regulations is one factor in boosting the economy, but the cost of climate change is going to be a real drag on society in the future.
This failure to address the climate crisis mirrors the Trump administrations failure to address the opioid crisis, our D grade infrastructure, and the growing debt that the GOP used to so stridently care for. Of course their plan for the debt is to slash spending on programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA leaving millions of people to fend for themselves.
Put it off and let younger generations deal with it. That can't be good for the economy.
12
When the economy is humming along at 4% unemployment, we should pay off debt. Why would we want to rack up more debt at a time when we're best able pay off the debt?
When the the next recession hits, we won't be able to use the usual tools of increased spending coupled with tax cuts? Our hands will be tied.
12
How can we possibly pay of the %10 trillion the criminal Obama added to the national debt??
Presidents have less impact on the economy than advocates insist, and this is especially true of a president who has no major legislation or policy change that has been in place long enough to effect the economy significantly. This is true, no matter whether one is or isn't a supporter of the incumbent in office when favorable numbers come out.
2
Mr Moore still believes that the Laugher(misspelling on purpose ) Curve works. Whenever I see him on Faux News, I feel like I am back in the 1980's. Voodoo economics never dies.
7
President Reagan's tax cuts rescued America from the malaise and disastrous Carter economy and created the greatest economic boom in history
2
What a perfect crystallization of Republican orthodoxy on Trump: ignore his autocratic impulses, racist hatemongering, complete ignorance of foreign policy, and unprecedented attacks on freedom of the press, as long as we can all make a quick buck on a bull market whose success is completely divorced from earnings. I recall a friend who admitted voting for Trump because he was really just hoping for a tax cut, which he got, and managed to get an extra grand in his pocket as a result. I now know exactly how much the integrity of democracy is worth to my friend: a couple hundred bucks. Democracy doesn't die because of people like Trump, Mr. Moore. It dies because of people like you.
15
The gentle ending of the Cold War set free the productivity of previously suppressed billions! Billions now earning and yearning to consume despite some apparent efforts to restore fear, division, and destruction. Fifty years of millions of American's credit due, from Keenan and Kissinger, Armstrong and Aldrin, Gates and Jobs, fifty thousand names on the memorial wall, and millions and millions of our parents and neighbors - yours and mine. Thank you all, forever, for this world still existing, for life ongoing, for this time and this chance. Thank all you. Freeloading fourflushers get lost.
How much credit did you give to Obama for saving the car companies and the Financial System that was reeling ??
12
Excuse me, but TARP, QE, and insuring money market funds began under Bush. Obama deserves no credit for that.
2
"If the economy were tanking, President Trump would get the blame." No, he wouldn't. Especially not if the tanking occurred in the first few months, as you further wrote. We do have some capability for thinking about cause and effect.
For me, disagreement with Trump's policies has to do largely with expectations of what is yet to come: a completely unnecessary deficit and debt burden, exacerbating income inequality (including for the supposedly forgotten people), placing that skewed wealth for a few above the well being of society as a whole -- including above safe air, water, etc.
Not to mention having no priority of finding levers for improving education performance so that we can compete with countries that value education. In the words of a Davos commentator: "The U.S. needs better education (to consider investing there)." Without that asset, how much leverage can a dramatically lowered corporate tax rate provide for the vast majority of Americans? Probably not much.
7
This is not Trump's economy. The economy is benefitting from the corrective actions taken by the Obama administration and the Fed. If there is a routine cyclical recession, it won't be Trump's fault either.
If Trump initiates a trade war, or hurts our economy with unilateral trade agreement abrogations, or starts a war, or over stimulates the economy by borrowing to give the 1% a big tax cut, fund an inflationary infrastructure, and fund an unnecessary wall with Mexico, then he will own that.
8
The answer to the title question is no, as any student of economics knows, or that the question itself is not worth an answer because it is a stupid question. Intellectually and policy-wise, Heritage is light weight, pure ideology that chugs regardless of reality, purely partisan as evidenced by arguing this useless question. Unfortunately, too many Americans don't know any better and parrot the lines, get sidetracked by such arguments.
3
We know what Trump claims is rarely true, just as he's now bragging about his labor and economic policies creating the lowest unemployment rate among black workers ever recorded.
Wow. In one year, between picking fights, insulting allies, and feeling he had to declare himself "the least racist person you will ever meet" (because no one else would), he still found time to embrace the jobless of color and make them productive Americans again.
But of course that's Fake News from a Fake President:
Obama had done the hard work, bringing the rate down from 16.7 percent in 2011 to 7.8 on his last day. The rate is now 6.8, the result most likely of the historic Obama decrease already in motion.
That comes to one percent in one year. Trump didn't mention that. But then taking credit for someone else's 7-year effort is the Art of the Steal.
6
"Success is a matter of luck. Just ask any Failure"
(From "Murphy's laws on work)
The expectedly Trump-hatijng audience of the NYT desperately tries to take the credit from the EXCELLENT policies of DOnald Trump, ESPECIALLY the lowering of the corporate income tax from an UNBELIEVABLY high 35%, a tax that forced many companies to evade taxes by going overseas, to a world-average 21%. IN FACT, it should be ZERO. Z-E-R-O Zero. And anybody who cannot understand why is an economic illiterate. Still, I will try to enlighten them:
A PUBLICLY held corporation is NOT "Some rich guy" who deserves to be taxed. It is a WIDELY HELD stock among dozens of millions of widows and orphans, low- paid salary workers who have mutual funds in their 401ks and IRAs, the VAST majority of retirements for US workers.
So, geniuses, suppose you tax the profits of a corporation at 35% (or even 21%), this is billions of dollars in tax owed. WHERE will the Corporation find that $? It cannot PRINT them, like the econ illiterate lefties of Chavez and Maduro who bankrupted Venezuela. It may TRY to raise the prices of its products, BUT this is not only very regressive and hurts the poor, it may make these products UNcompetitive. It may try to limit the pay raises to its workers, or cut them to zero altogether, or even threaten them with pay CUTS. AND if this is not enough, it may well TAKE ITS TOYS AND GO, and make its products in MEXICO, if not Bangladesh and Vietnam. How would you like that?
1
BRAVO! Finally, someone with a brain provides an astute analysis.
I would further add the pensions of cops, teachers, sanitation workers, firefighters, and other such blue collar employees are managed by pension funds that invest in the market of publicly traded companies.
Further, a thousand may not be much, but too many families outside of the tri state area that thousand can help pay a mortgage or car payment.
Once again, if you don't like the benefits of the tax cuts and market returns, please fee free to donate the money.
It's funny how Warren Buffet and George Soros complain they are not getting taxed enough. Ok, so why don't they write billion dollar checks to the Treasury? I am sure they can afford it.
2
So, in your dreamy (gauzy) world, who does that leave to pay the bills for physical infrastructure, defense, education, and health care in the face of monopolistic providers and suppliers? (Just for example, mind you . . . )
Maybe you should check into how many people - widows and orphans according to your screed- who do NOT have holdings in the stock market. There are a LOT of them. Also there are a huge number of people who are not salaried in this economy and who have NO retirement savings. The vast retirement savings in the US is Social Security- and Trump is trying to mess with that.
ps: Trump has yet to build his "toys" in America- he and Ivanka have their factories pumping out ties and shoes in China and Malawi. I guess they took their toys and went- a long time ago.
1
I’m simply amazed that the NYT dared to publish an article that pretty much called the economic situation by its real name. Who knows, maybe soon we’ll even read something about the Nobama economic effect. Still, I doubt that even a 8% growth in the future would change the opinion of the far left that dominates today the Democratic Party. For them, business is a sin that may be temporarily tolerated only if it’s forever more regulated and taxed.
2
Excellent point! If capitalism is so horrible and socialism so great, why is the left advocating so hard for illegals to come into our capitalist country. Conversely, why are kids literally starving in the streets of a socialist country like Venezuela?
1
The logic of the synopsis of your column is faulty.
First, the expectation that A (Trump's bad policies) implies B (tanking economy) does not mean that reality non-B (growing economy) implies non-A (Trump's policies are good), as there could be other factors that lead to non-B besides non-A, or even despite A.
Second, it is unlikely that the president can change much the economy in only one year. So, Trump should not be blamed/praised YET for anything economy-related, good or bad. We should not attribute to Trump the supper-bubble of DJI growing by 40% in one year, just as we should not blame him
when the bubble will burst.
2
But, you would at the very least agree that the imminent and immediate doom predicted by Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman did not come to pass right after the election, correct?
1
During the 2016 campaign, the unemployment rate fell to 5%. Trump and his team said those numbers were fake. They said the unemployment rate was really 30%-40%. The rate continued to fall after Trumps election and he now says the numbers are real and he takes credit. Here's the bottom line -Yellin's low interest rates and Obama's economic policies kept this economy humming for 10 years.
9
Intended or not the senseless barbarity of our conduct of the Viet Nam War secured the credibility of our nuclear deterent in minds doubtful we would ever destroy life with rruthless craven indifference, even our own. Discovering atomic power and not blowing up the world, ending war, working out how to live sustainably will headline our pages in history. Or there will be no further history. Lillipitians count small potatoes. And poorly.
Fourth quarter GDP was 2.6%. That is not 3%. Who’s fact checking this article?
Yes, the economy is booming, and we’ve been in recovery for almost nine years. Trump gets 1/9th credit for that.
4
Liberals are so unbelievably ridiculous and blatantly biased. First, yes, the economy was improving under Obama, no doubt. However, when Trump was elected, liberals shills like Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman were predicting an economic disaster shortly thereafter. But, what happened? The economy actually improved even better and faster than it did under Obama. Need proof: look at charts of the Dow and S&P for the last ten years. A picture is worth a thousand words: yes, the climb started after 09, but the ascent is steepest from the November 2016. That is 100%, irrefutable fact. Further, the argument that this boom has only benefited the wealthy utterly baseless on the merit. I am middle class and have seen my IRA and 401K accounts grow exponentially in the last year. And, what of all the bonuses that have been handed out to line workers by Comcast, Starbucks, Disney, etc. Look, I didn't vote for Trump. But, I am also not blinded by biased hatred to the extent that I will not give the administration credit for the trend within the last year. Will it last? Of course not. There will certainly be a correction like there always. And, I am quite sure that all the hateful libs will then certainly blame Trump for such a correction. Let's try to put our aside our hatred and admit that business has responded very positively to Trump and his policies.
3
"Read my lips. No new taxes" George H.W. Bush
How'd that work out? Read some recent history.
The definition of ‘booming economy’ is obsolete and discriminatory. More accurate would be to call it the ‘oligarchy stat update.’
Most, and I do mean MOST, American families do not own stocks. To base our economic projections on that is a cruel joke and 1% entitlement update.
Economists have made up formulas to sooth their egos and please their bosses for ages.
An economic and truthful statistic would be a figure that encompasses the variables of percentage of jobs created earning minimum wage, percentage of jobseekers dropping out of job search due to hopelessness and lack of options, percentage of affordable middle and low income housing units located miles from major job arenas, percentage of Americans driving 10 year old cars, percentage increase in homelessness, percentage of Americans who will in all likelihood never be able their own homes.
Income inequality defines the state of our nation. And our nation is not soaring. It is drowning.
Increased revenue not going to the masses is the real state of the union. It is they who bailed out Wall Street. Not the reverse.
Our economy is not booming. It is tanking.
1
Funny how a conservative "think" tank like the Heritage Foundation suddenly finds living on borrowed money a good thing.
3
It's pretty typical in the historical sense. Republicans come to power, Republicans deregulate, economy booms, greed rises up it ugly head, the rich get richer, the poor stay poor, the middle class gets the short stick, there is an attack on entitlements in the guise of the need to balance the budget, banks go wild, capitalists rejoice, then comes the bust. Then comes the Democrats to fix the problem with responsible regulations. Then the Republicans blame the democrats for the debacle and take power once again. Then comes the deregulation. Then comes the......
3
The Heritage Foundation is all that I need to know. Fox and Enemies is the bullhorn spouting lies and The Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity are the brains behind Fox.
3
Silly article. One false perception does not make another false perception true simply by suggestion they are consistent.
No. If the economy was bad now it wouldn't be Trump's fault anymore than the bad economy inherited by Obama from Bush was Obama's fault. Just so, what we are seeing now is due to Obama not Trump, no matter how much he claims it. Trump can claim credit for the soaring market..but there is nothing real in stock market prices...history has taught us that one in spades.
2
Another unbiased opinion piece from the Heritage Foundation, an organization that disclaims its role in producing the policies of the PP&ACA, and an organization that has moved so far to the right that it doesn't recognize itself.
As I recall, when the economy boomed in the '90s, it was all Greenspan's doing. Clinton got no credit. Neither should the Chump.
1
The problem with Mr. Moore's analysis is that there is very little proof that any of this "success" has anything to do with Mr. Trump or his policies. Had the economy been slow, Mr. Moore would be arguing that it was Mr. Obama's fault and one year was just not enough for Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama was to be blamed - the same double standard he claims now. Indeed, a few months from now if the stock market tanks we can be sure to see a column by a right wing columnist about how Mr. Obama ( or Mr. Clinton even) is responsible for the failure. This is column is nothing but partisan hackery.
What intrigues me though is the illustration showing a Trump shadow with Washington's image. What in the world is that supposed to represent. Trump as the anti-Washington ( light versus dark?) Is the artist or editor subtly undermining Mr. Moore?
1
Could have just moved the by line to the top and skipped the article
DJT is riding on the coat tails of his predecessor.
Other than a tax present for the wealthy there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that this administration has done to boost the financial structures of our economy.
It takes more than 4 quarters for policies to show help or harm in any meaningful way.
Of course the sitting president owns the economic numbers under his watch just as Obama was responsible for digging us out of the 2008-9 economic downturn.
DJT owns it, but he has done nothing to deserve credit for the current economic success.
Very much like a idiot son/daughter inheriting millions from a parents estate. They are now seen as a millionaire but cannot tell you how to make one more dollar more out of it.
It’s given to them.
1
Gosh! The trumpfactor has given us, miraculously, a continuing healthy economy . . . and the only cost to us is . . . wait for it, . . . the resumption of trashing the environment, republican-style. Are you sure it's worth it in the end?
I'm getting very close to cancelling my subscription to this newspaper after 25 years. I've defended a lot of these op ed pieces in the past as the Times trying to be somewhat balanced and providing an outlet for multiple points of view and not just a liberal one. But I've reached my limit of pro dumpster fire propaganda. There's no upper limit of condemnations from "The Editorial Board" that can balance this slime. I appreciate those pieces, but they're not enough. Many fascists/authoritarians/kleptocrats have bright spots in their regimes as long as you ignore the oppression, terror, and misery of the bigger picture. So. Yeah. Maybe Jabba the Hutt threw fun parties as long as you weren't the one in the metal bikini or any other part of the entertainment. His cronies did well as long as they didn't make him mad. So sure. Trump can have credit for this "great" economy and the absolute existential terror so many of us seem to live in 24/7.
Why is the dollar so weak against the euro?..... the dollar is loosing ground in overaseas markets and that is not good for us.......
"If the economy had nose-dived in 2017, there's no doubt the media would have pounced on Trump policies as disgraceful failures. But with the economy red-hot, he gets little credit. That's a double standard."
Oh please. Statement 1 clearly did not happen, and Statement 2 is clearly undermined by Mr Moore's opinion being printed on the NYT. How is that a double standard, other than inside Mr Moore's own head?
If President Trump saved a person from a burning building and there were pictures and video and a hundred people witnessing this act, the liberals would say the pictures and video were photo shopped and the witnesses were all liars.
Bush broke the country/economy, Obama fixed it, and Trump hasn't broken it again just yet. Credit obviously goes to Obama. Anybody with an iota of intelligence can see that.
NYT, Why let this twerpy little man push GOP propaganda? This isn't news and his opinion/perspective provides ZERO value to readers.
1
These numbers are less impressive than you think... 7 trillion in wealth - the bulk to the wealthy, some to 55 million 401k owners means nothing to 300 million other Americans. I guess they don't count.
7 years of "impressive" under Obama... yet somehow equal to 1 year of "impressive" under Trump. No slant here
Problem is, economic gains are now starting to come at the expense of the environment, public health, and financial health with the loosening of regulations in all of these areas. And then when new tax policies start kicking in another two year or two, it will be the top teir of earners that get those gains while everyone else will remain stagnant, as trickle-down economics has proven in the past.
3
Trump would take credit for the sunrise if he thought he could get away with it. Perhaps he believes his own baloney. I don't. If the economy tanks, I guarantee he will find a scapegoat. It won't be his fault. He'll probably blame the investigation into what he calls the 'fake" Russian interference in our election and Bob Mueller. Yeah, that'll be it.
2
Every reputable economist throughout my lifetime has said, "presidents don't actually have much impact on the economy". This is Yellen's Economy now; this is Jerome Powell's economy (maybe); it's not Trump's, any more than the steadily increasing stockmarket and dropping unemployment rate was to Obama's credit.
5
In real life, all independent studies of the 2009 Stimulus done by this country's best economists in 2009, including the CBO, predicted that it would turn an economy with a -9% GDP and 700,000 jobs lost a month, into a steadily growing economy for at least a decade, thanks to its very well-designed tax cuts for small businesses and middle class families. Which is exactly what happened and continues to happen today.
It's absurd to believe that tax policy doesn't have any influence on the economy.
If you put money back into ordinary citizens' pockets, especially lower income people, that money is spent immediately on products and services that are essential to survive, so it directly stimulates the economy.
If you put money into the wealthiest 1%'s pockets, however, NOTHING indicates that all of a sudden those couple of millions more will encourage them to hire more people or increase wages, rather than use them to speculate on Wall Street and as such merely increase their own "income".
So you don't even need to read any of those scientific studies made by the best economists out there to realize that the government's decisions have an important influence, even common sense shows that of course, it does.
2
1. One has to look out minimum a couple of years and even longer. We’re still reckoning the full impacts of the fiscal and regulatory policies of the past 30 years.
Yes, Trump has systematically overturned taxes, regulations, energy, climate change, net neutrality, budget priorities and health care and everyone of these changes benefit the wealthiest people who live in America. Allowing the coal industry to expand will make it happy and hire more workers but that must be balanced against the damage it will cause to the environment. Reducing the taxes of billionaires and corporations will make them happy and induce them to grow the economy but that economy will not, judging by the last 3 1/2 decades, improve the lot of most Americans. He has been unsuccessful in defeating Obamacare but he has succeeded in shorting the revenue which supports healthcare and will continue on this tack.
2
The wealthy do not, are not the prime drivers of the economy. They can not expand it. If they stopped buying certain niche high cost items, it would not have much of an impact. Yachts do not do much for the overall markets and larger economies. Jewelry same. High end autos,same. Clothes,same. And if luxury residences are no longer being bought up, it would lower the overall costs of living in urban and dense, wealthy suburban zones.
I object to your agreeing that Trump is entitled to take credit for our rosier economy. The upswing since the recession is largely due to steps that the Obama administration put into place for recession recovery.
Trump is putting into place regulatory rollbacks that endanger the same bust cycle created by unscrupulous banking practices as well as result in long-term irretrievable and irreplaceable loss of our natural resources.
Short term-- maybe we will see some economic plus (especially for corporations and the wealthy). Long term-- we are courting dangerous outcomes.
16
The economy could have taken off years ago, if the republicans in congress weren't holding it hostage to make Obama look bad. Republicans were asked numerous times if they were willing to increase taxes one dollar for ten dollars in tax cuts in a deal with Obama and they all said, "No." Now they cut a tax deal that raises taxes on millions of families in blue states without blinking an eye. Republicans made american families suffer unnecessarily for 8 years. It's disgusting.
15
No sane person wants to see this economy fail.
What's disconcerting is the author's failure to recognize its foundation and, more importantly, a fact acknowledged by all knowledgeable economists: It takes about two years for a new administration's economics to kick in.
The public's acknowledgement that we are living off Obama's economy is well recognized. If its turns out things keep going up while the economy is on Trump's watch, we'll all be happy. Some of us will be surprised. I'll be one of them.
4
No, Trump should not get the credit. He should not get the credit for anything except for wrecking the standing of the USA with the rest of the world.
The economy - at least measured by Wall Street barometers, has increased despite Trump for no reasonable reason - but most likely from manipulation and insider trading crimes at the financial houses and the banks which, unfortunately, goes unpunished day after day, month after month, year
after year.
The American credos of old - work ethics and honesty are gone. Hopefully after Trump and the Republicans are thrown under the logs to live with other insects and subspecies, things might change. Unless and until that happens the USA will continue to turn into a dictatorship.
5
The problem is that once the economy fails, Trump will blame Obama.
3
And don't forget Hillary, Mueller and Comey. He'll blame them too. He's that dumb.
Yes, Donald Trump and our Republican congress deserve some credit for the economy's health, but just how much? There is no question that he inherited a healthy economy with plenty of momentum. And yes, he has injected some new life into it, but how? By loosening regulations? That's good for growth, but regulations exist for a reason and loosening them may bring about some consequences. By reducing taxes for business and the wealthy. Again a great way to goose the market, but it also possible that the market has already reflected those gains, both real and anticipated and growth will slow in the second year (not to mention the third and fourth). I'd be happy to give Trump credit for this growth had he not lied so shamelessly about Obama's economy. He was saying that unemployment was 42% a lie of staggering proportions. He gives himself too much credit so he gets none from me.
2
It'll be interesting to see whether Moore and other Trumpian apologists own the economy if there's a downturn (or worse).
I wouldn't expect anything too honest from them in that contingency.
3
From now on, I bet this kind of writings will proliferate in order to mobilize the public opinion and oblivion so to help the public forget how wrong they were criticizing someone whose main interest is bringing back the sense of abundance ( or great again) no matter how, is it not? Good luck, that will be easy, is just about having money for consumption addiction.
I'm unsure what your point is.
All the additional money we are getting now is adding to a deficit to be paid in the future. The USA doesn’t have a surplus. Trump will do what he does best. Bankrupt America.
If tradjectory of economy would significantly change, become much better or much worse Trump would own it. It could be natural change too if it would get worse, after 8 years of growth economy could get worse, for example
Since economy was continued Obama's direction in every measurement it is still Obama's economy. With one assumption. If deregulation(financial, environmental) leads to crisis very clearly it will be Trump's crisis. Or any other clear consequence of Trump's polity could be counted and his success of failure.
The construction work on the Tappan Zee bridge who secured the last bolts on the bridge could take full credit for the bridge not falling down but we would think that is silly given the thousands works that did their part for making the bridge secure before him.
However, the reverse is not true. That same construction work could take responsibility for the bridge collapsing for NOT securing the last bolts. Life is not always symmetrical and the details matter.
1
its the Cuomo bridge, details matter
Just because people have jobs, it doesn't mean they're well paying. You can have a large underclass of desperate people working two or three jobs or gigs trying to make ends meet for their families.
1
First the deregulators and their "job creator" masters gave us the S&L debacle; then they brought about the crash of 2008 and subsequent recession. Both cost the taxpayers billions.
Their obvious failure to learn anything from these events will soon bring about the next disaster, but this time let's make sure that the it's the billionaires who'll pay for it. If it happens, raise the top tax rates back to 90%; tax extraordinary investment income at the same rate as earnings, confiscate any funds hidden off-shore. The financial crooks do ten-twenty in Levenworth. No more bail-outs.
Senior Adviser to Trump? That's a credential?
McClatchy newspapers had to correct Moore's flagrantly false writing years ago, and vowed to no longer publish him.
As Krugman has pointed out, there are economist who are liberal and economist who are conservative; but only the GOP has flunkys who are conservative economists, following the dictates of GOP campaign funders.
Rule #1 for Moore, a tried and true flunky, is: write whatever you want if it would make the rich richer.
If it squashes the little guy, that's just icing on the cake.
4
You know if the economy were tanking, this shameless Republican apologist would be blaming and castigating Obama. If it's Trump's economy it's great for his crooked friends and family, his Russian masters, and for the owners of the Republican Party, the Koch Brothers and their plutocrat cronies. For the rest of us, not so great. It's the usual Republican con game, and when the bubbles they create with all their tax breaks for the rich and deregulation pop, it will once again, as in 1929, 1992, and 2008, be Democrats who will ha ve to clean up their mess, and pick up the pieces, all while the Republican Criminal Organization obstructs, vilifies, demonizes and sabotages their efforts.
The American People must begin to realize that the Republican Party is NOT a political organization - it is a criminal mafia masquerading as a political party. Republicans belong in prison, not running a government they seek to destroy, on behalf of plutocrats and oligarchs who only seek to reduce the rest of their countrymen, who they only have contempt and distain for, to penniless serfs.
I'd almost be inclined to agree with Mr. Moore.....almost.....if it weren't for the fact (yes fact) that if the economy DID tank, the present occupant of the White House would declare it an "Obama Economy" in a New York Minute.
No doubt that Trump would have blamed Obama if the economy tanked. He would be correct if it tanked do to Obama policies and Trump's policies were not yet in place. As it is, little of Trump's executive orders have time to make changes and the huge tax cut did inflate the stock market but it's real effects are still in the future. Thus, the strong underlying economy should be attributed to Obama while the market's recent rise from December can be attributed to Trump and the GOP Congress. That being said, the long term effect will be disastrous. Yes, the bottom lines of companies will look better if you reduce their taxes (hence the run up in the market) but the terrible effect it will have on the deficit will crush our economy in 2-3 years and at the same time making it difficult, if not impossible, to easily dig out of it. Yes, folks. Hold onto your stocks for the next year or two and then get ready to sell it all, quick. 2008 was nothing compared to what's coming.
3
"Blue-collar manufacturing, construction and mining jobs have risen by almost half a million in just one year."
In real life, during Trump's first year "total U.S. coal mining jobs grew by 771 to 54,819", according to the the Mining Health and Safety Administration (https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-coal-jobs/exclusive-most-u-s-states-....
Now let's take a look at manufacturing jobs. In 2017, 196,000 new jobs were added. That's less than in 2014 or 2011, when more than 200,000 jobs were added (https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/manufacturing-jobs-roaring-back/).
Finally, according to the government the economy added 406,000 manufacturing AND construction jobs in 2017, which means, taken together with the previous link, that there were 210,000 new construction jobs - which is exactly the same number as the yearly average number of construction jobs from 2010 to 2014, for instance.
Conclusion: it's not only a fact that 2017 job markets were still entirely related to the implementation of Obama's last budget, whereas Trump's budget will only be implemented during his second year in office (as is the case with all presidents), what happened in 2017 may be "the kind of response we hoped for from lowering corporate and repatriation taxes", as Moore calls it, but in real life, it's a response to OBAMA's regulations and higher corporate taxes.
When will GOP ideologues have the guts to start confronting reality as it is ... ?
8
One might also add some important, yet, to some, conveniently forgotten numbers to the discussion. As a result of the negative response to the "Trump Effect", in the first year of this administration, there has been a 4% drop in tourism resulting in the overall loss of 40,000 jobs(and growing)in this very important sector of the American economy.
2
Finally, someone that dos their homework as I do. I do not spout facts that I haven't vetted, it's true the more you know, means the more ammunition you have to counter those pesky GOP lies. All the facts you allude to, you support with the links to show those nonbelievers. I have done the same thing with this "tax reform" and the lie about jobs. In fact AT&T, Exxon, and many other have laid off workers consistently since 2011. Why would a few billion be cause to hire those they've laid off. They will take the money and buy back their stock artificially raising the price of it, creating a windfall for the CEOs, that have done nothing for the long term growth of their company.
Short term economic forecasting or thinking (meaning less then 3-4 year time period) requires speculation on a grand scale. The effect of Fed interest rate manipulation takes a year or more to filter on through....and then, several years to percolate throughout the entire economy.
It is always possible to find academics and economists who are "right" or "correct." The law of large numbers applies. In any large group of people, there are always some individuals who appear prescient in their forecasts. I'm not denigrating their skills or their predictions, but reminding myself that for periods less than 5 years, a good deal of "luck" may have an exaggerated influence.
Yes, the tax cut has stimulated activity. But, the growing deficits are ignored in the short-term behavior of short-term business people and money managers. The tax cut is an illusion and a dangerous one at that because no one or few people are wary of the long-term consequences of increasing federal debt.
The people who pass the tax cuts will be long-gone when the essential Federal services will have to be cut because the interest (to China? to Japan? to who-knows-whom?) will have to be paid. The USA, I fear, will be a has-been as China and India muscle into center stage. It doesn't have to be that way.
As our culture has progressed and enabled many to prosper, the current economic growth has been gradually progressing for years and years...predating Bush (who didn't know "jack"), Obama, and the current POTUS.
1
But that didn't stop Paul Krugman from issuing panicked warnings the day Trump took office that a stock market crash and deep global economic recession would ensue immediately. In fact, if you Google Krugman's economic predictions over the years, you'll see the Nobel laureate's (for his academic study of global import/export patterns) predictions are about as worthless as any prediction made by Kramer on CNBC.
And although Krugman clearly despises Trump to the point of demagoguery (Krugman claimed cholera was spreading in Puerto Rico due to Trump's post-hurricane efforts when in fact the CDC issued no cholera warnings), one thing he and Trump have in common: Neither will ever admit he was wrong about anything. Ever.
JW I suspect we may agree on the speculations of an economist who is writing about issues quite different from his academic and Nobel Prize award.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2008...
Hubris (& "know it all") seems a characteristic of many successful professionals who roam outside their area of expertise...including the current POTUS.
As Krugman writes in his NYT columns, it appears he doesn't subscribe to GAAP rules or basic economic principles. For us mortals, one cannot spend more than one earns or receives in income....be it personal, a business, or a govt entity....unless one wishes to risk bankruptcy or has the ability to create and to print unlimited amounts of script credits (aka "money") and inflate the currency (degrade/ devalue the currency), so its citizens fake themselves out with false illusions. I suspect Krugman is writing for a misguided audience but pleases his editors by pulling in many eyeballs (aka subscribers). It's a pathetically sad situation. Even the NYT makes compromises in the pursuit of paying the utility bills, eh?
I am no fan of Trumpster, either. I am dismayed by the absurdity of both major political parties. Trumpster and Krugman do have something in common = they both create reams of "fake news." LOL
Keep up your good work, JW. I enjoy your keen insights.
I disagree with the premise of this article. I would expect an economist to point out that the President has relatively little influence over the economy, so we should stop assigning blame or credit to Presidents altogether. If anything, our economy is most affected by long-term global trends that are mitigating growth in developed nations across the board.
Small point: Moore says that the "40 percent increase in the Dow Jones industrial average" has benefited "every one of the 55 million Americans with a 401(k) plan." Not true. Those with 401Ks who are many years from retirement don't at all benefit, since their retirement contributions are buying fewer shares at very high prices. The 40 percent increase is of course great for those who have just retired or are nearing retirement.
8
You have not made a single penny in the stock market until you sell. Until then, those are paper gains. Just ask all the 401K millionaires in 2007 how they felt in the 2008. Many of them sold after the crash, locking in their losses. Same thing is going to happen this time around. People just don't learn.
1
That is correct, I point this out to colleagues all the time.
Considering that Trump promised the middle class a HUGE tax cut, and that he expects that middle class to spend this HUGE windfall, then that means the consumer orient economy will get a HUGE boost.
Well, guess what? Much of the HUGE tax cuts amounts to something small enough, that it may pay one's cell phone bill for a month or two. Of course, ir you live in a state with a sizable income and/or property tax, then whatever tax cut you did get, will be eliminated; or even worse, your taxes will go up. The $10000 limit in a place like New York, will not cover property taxes for most of Long Island. Let alone New York State income tax and the New York City "commuter tax". Meanwhile, other costs go up, like LIPA and that monthly pass on the LIRR.
Well, you could move to a low tax state, but guess what? You can no longer deduct moving expenses or job search expenses. So, you better have a good emergency account. Oh, you don't? Why, because you have to pay higher taxes.
Well, you can always hope you get a raise. Guess what? Most employers are not going to do so. No big ones an y way. expect that 1% or 2% you have been getting fro the past 8 or so years, if any. With a "bonus" of $1000.
What does this mean fro the Trump economy? Less consumer spending, due to less disposable income. Thus, putting off buying things. Which creates a nice downward spiral. This is how you create recessions.
Yes, Trump you own the potential of Great Recession II. Congratulations.
9
But, wait...people in blue states love taxes. So, why are you complaining?
Not to mention in 2027, when those deductions we currently get expire, and MORE OF OF OUR NET INCOME IS TAXABLE. So much for discretionary spending.
Neither. The President doesn't control the economy. At best, one could point to specific legislation, following actual data, and say "that was a good decision" or "that was a bad decision" for the economy. Anything else is far too nebulous; correlation is not causation.
Neither can one claim that any of Clinton, Bush, or Obama were respectively responsible for the strength of the economy during their terms simply by their presence. However, you could, for example, argue that Congress and Pres. Clinton, via the repeal of Glass-Steagall, were to blame for the 2008 financial crisis 10 years later. Cause and effect isn't instantaneous with a president's presence during his (or her...) term.
10
Excellent and true points. Their 'truthiness' hasn't prevented Trump and his cabal from claiming credit for things they had nothing to do with, of course. The effects of the terrible tax legislation are still years away.
1
Clinton's 'repeal' was one step in a long line of such actions that led to the 2007/2008 financial crisis. There is much blame to go around.
"But for now, it’s hard to see many dark clouds on the horizon."
I'm sure atmospheric conditions looked fine in 1892, 1972, 2006, etc.
7
...and in 1928...
1
If he can take credit for the booming stock market, will he accept responsibility when it tanks? Of course not. I am unwilling to give him any credit because he cannot shoulder responsibility.
4
- trajectory of stock market did not change
- the majority of Americans don't own stocks in amounts that booming stock market would change their personal life
Right now most of the world is doing very well and it must be galling for Moore to see ( if he bothers to look) that Socialist Canada grew faster than the USA and the dysfunctional Euro zone grew at the same rate.
Canada also outgrew the USA in industrial production growth.
Japan, Euro zone stock exchanges out grew in $ terms the USA growth.
I make these points to illustrate that there are global factors at work which is great.
Even Moore must agree , Obama inherited a total economic mess which could have plunged the world into total economic and social chaos, he with the stimulus package , saving of the Auto industry and tax reductions etc, working with other Governments saved the Global economy.
Trump inherited a strong economy with solid foundations and any growth in 2017 was due to Obama. If Moore thinks manufacturing capacity is created overnight , he is so wrong.
These decisions with the inevitable lead times were made before Trumps election.
Yes when things go wrong the Republicans and Trump will and should be blamed as they would have caused it by their irresponsible tax bill.
We do not have the skilled labour to grow in the longer term , raw materials including oil are increasing, inflation , higher interest rates will eventuate .
Our real problems have not been addressed, education, health care costs and quality , environment, most of all income inequality.
12
Canada has a socialized medical system but is not a socialist nation. They have big, privately owned companies. We have socialized retirement, for now, with Social Security. It doesn't make us a socialist country either.
You are 100% on target. Trump is actually making the economy much worse. Those effects won't be felt until 2 to 3 years from now. Hold your stocks for that period and then sell fast! The GOP always destroys the economy.
So, the person sitting in the WH gets the credit or the blame….no other way to analyze this ? If Obama was the conductor of the train, got it up to speed…and, then suddenly Trump is now the conductor…as long as he doesn't crash, he gets all the credit? Isn't our economy a slow moving train, doesn't it take years for some things to happen? The last point, wages for the middle class….if they go up, if the middle class begins to benefit…then, maybe then…i will concede, Trump did something good.
2
Will Trump take the blame when we need to spend trillions cleaning up our rivers and oceans?
5
Thanks for posting this question! In addition to poisoning our water sources, if we fail to act now on reducing a rise in the earth's temperature, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global surface temperatures could rise another 4.7 to 8.6 degrees F. this century.
It's the economy of the wealthy. Get real!
2
Silly NYT. Everything good that happens is due to the last, or current, Democrat. Everything bad is due to the last, or current, Republican.
If there were 50 Republicans in a row, and everything was going swimmingly, it would be thanks to that Democrat centuries ago.
I'm amazed to see the NYT give credit where credit is due. Obama got to blame Bush for 8 solid years. And now liberals would credit him for things going well a year after he left office. It's amazing. But hey....at least we're not blaming Eisenhower any more.
This is TRUMP'S economy. Low unemployment is the only factor that drives up real wages.
2
trump is a real estate grifter that has been rescued from multiple bankruptcies by laundering Russian money for decades. What creative new way will he wreck the economy as he seeks to engorge himeself and his rich cronies at our expense?
4
Are you referring to the same man who bankrupted nearly every enterprise he ever touched? Who rarely paid what he owed? Who treated contractual obligations like their written with disappearing ink? The economy is doing well IN SPITE of Trump and the idiot Republicans running Congress. But be sure, they'll eventually find a way to wreck what we have.
1
I’m sick of?white men telling us everything’s coming up roses. The economy is only “great” for wealthy, mostly white people.
AND - for a campaign promising jobs - there were over 17,000 jobs CUT from the Federal Gov’t in 2017 - and their goal is to cut 200,000. And that’s according to Forbes (not exactly a left-wing bastion).
So the mouth pieces of this White House can say everything’s great - and they want all the credit.
But it is NOT great for many, so I hope the millions of folks not lifted by this rising tide for the rich - remember who is taking the credit - and vote them out in 2018 and 2020!!
4
The fascinating horror of Trump, evident even before he was elected, was partly responsible for his victory. As wages and job security improve his appeal as an outsider will diminish. He may get credit for bringing many into the mainstream, but he will remain unpopular. His vulgar bullying will motivate his defeat no matter how well the economy does. The economy he inherited was pretty good. If you think you know what it will be like when he leaves in 3 years, you are a fool, even if you are right.
1
....systematically overturn policies on taxes, regulations, energy, climate change - so if you take away 1.5 billion from the public accounts via budget deficit, if you take away climate and energy preservation policies and pay ZERO to the public and give them for free to companies (frackers? banks?). No wonder the corporate balance-sheets are looking better and the S&P is going up. For the life of me i can't understand why no one is putting a price on these regulations some might be spurious but not the majority.
2
Stephen Moore is again at his old game, namely massaging numbers to make his point. The economy did not grow at 3%, it grew at 2.6%. Yes, 2.6% rounded up gets to 3%, just as 3% rounded up gets to 5%. So, USA is growing at the same rate as China, which is growing at 6.6% (rounded down to 5%). Moore must have gone to Liberty University, where magical thinking prevails.
6
"So far, wages and salaries haven’t bumped up much" ..... Nor will they, as a result of slashing top marginal tax rates, taxes on capital gains, etc. We have been through this countless times already. Reagan left us with a junk-bond economy and the S&L crisis. George Bush cut taxes, and the economy tanked. (Cutting taxes during wartime: so much for shared sacrifice.) Moreover, I don't want to work at Walmart or in San Francisco. Walmart would have to double employee salaries in order to get them off food stamps. And San Fran, in addition to being one of the most expensive cities on the planet, is all tech. Tech careers are mostly for millennials, not a cross-section of the populace. ..... Finally, Stephen Moore is not an economic analyst. He is an uber-wealthy and entirely self-interested investment banker. And while I'm at it, please cull the Apple hagiography. I met Steve Jobs twice. Both encounters were unpleasant.
1
I will grant that Trump has had a positive impact on the economy (much to my surprise). However, perhaps because I am not living hand-to-mouth, I would happily exchange a drop in 401K value and a smaller EOY bonus for some national dignity and no anxiety that my children may end up living in some quasi-dictatorial state.
3
Mr Moore is a well known Trump crony who routinely engages in misrepresenting, misquoting, distorting reality and has probably not given up hope to find a position in Trump administration. He is utterly non-credible and his views are intellectually dishonest. He is the same person who denied facts during Obama years and never gave him credit for turning around an economy devastated by Republican policies. Mr Moore please don't insult our intelligence.
3
Not sure why a Heritage guy's writing for this paper; that's not what subscribers pay for. We want the truth, not the talking points for billionaires and their hired guns. The right-wing owns Trump and all his corrupt, hateful ways. If you really want to talk about an economic miracle, let's talk Obama coming in as the ship was sinking after the vast looting by the Wall Street gang and their top stockholders (people who never paid for their greed and causation of our recession, and who now reap the greatest profits; again!), and bringing us back to a somewhat healthy economy. Remember? Just as Bush was leaving? Conservatives, remember?
2
It's fun to ask hypothetical questions because your answer can never be wrong. It is an actual fact that President Trump routinely blames any bad thing any circumstance not to his liking on President Obama. So, if the economy were tanking, President Trump would blame Obama. Can you prove me wrong? No. Most economists believe that the effects of a president on the economy, if any, take time to manifest themselves. Also, a roaring stock market does not indicate a healthy economy. Real wages are not high enough, and improved business results that reflect cuts in regulations just means we will all pay with more dangerous working conditions and a more toxic environment. Yet Trump claims to side with workers. In fact, his only achievement is to boost corporate profits with a tax giveaway to the wealthy and corportations. Any benefits to the middle class (not to mention the poor!) are merely incidental and relatively negligible.
Mr. Moore,
Great effort to try to explain the improvement in America's economy to the Times readers. Unfortunately the hatred for President Trump is so visceral among the liberal/progressives that any amount of positive news during his presidency will not find a sympathetic or appreciative audience. In fact I would venture to guess that this comment will not even get printed.
So Mr. Moore while I appreciate the effort my advice is to just enjoy the prospect of "Making America Great Again" and let the naysayers wallow in their despair.
Guess you are wrong about your comment being printed. Wrong about Trump too.
1
The usual straw-man argument from Trump supporters: I have believed for years that the first 18 months of a new administration are the old administration's economy. Much as Mr. Moore would love to flog those straw men--I'm sure some exist-- I don't know anyone who expected to blame Trump if the economy had tanked in 2017. The idea that the economy turns on a dime is a myth. I was fully prepared to attribute a weak economy in 2017 to Obama, not Trump, if that was what happened. Sure, Trump's policies may have had some impact, especially on the rich, but the fundamental soundness of the economy and financial systems was clearly due to the rational policies adopted by President Obama. I fully intend to attribute the economy after June 2018 to Mr. Trump. We'll see.
2
I was willing to agree with Mr. Moore's premise until he claimed that when the Reagan tax cuts kicked in, the economy soared.
Sorry, but that's just factually false. The tax cuts were combined with unprecedented defense spending and a vast increase in the national debt. Simple (and successful) example of Keynsian economics, yet Republicans still want to claim this as a victory for academically-debunked Laffer Curve, trickle-down nonsense.
It's shameful that a supposed academic policy advisor continues to peddle this theory, no matter how many Republicans mistakenly believe it, and I don't think the NYT should allow people like Mr. Moore to perpetuate these falsehoods.
2
Those that think does not deserve credit for the improving economy must surely agree that Obama deserves no credit for the US coming out of the recession. After all, the recession ended in mid 2009, only 6 months into Obama’s reign. Here, we have 12 months of Trump. In addition the policies that helped pull us out of the recession; TARP, QE, and insuring moneymarket assets, were begun during the Bush term by the Fed. I would argue that the Fed deserves all of the credit. Obama deserves on,y the criticism of making it the weakest post war recovery.
1
Trump should get “credit” if the economy slips but not if it continues to grow, especially if lower growth
The economy is like a ship. It takes time to change direction. It’s been going in Obama’s direction. Change is on trump
I am honestly curious, during the Obama years as things steadily improved from the mess he inherited did you give him credit? I find it interesting that republicans kept on insisting how bad the economy was under Obama, then to turn around and say now that Trump is president that suddenly the economy is in great shape.
3
If we have a recession and the stock market should fall in a way similar to in 2001-2002 or like in 2008, does that means President Trump's policies are to blame?
4
The Stock Market is not us.
9
Well said, that.
Please add David and Charles Koch to the article's byline. The stated goal of Heritage Foundation, the author's employer, is "to formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of 'free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.'"
Remarkably, little value is given to liberty or justice for all...or that all are created equal. These guys couldn't care less. They believe, without an ounce of irony or concern, that greed is good. Guess what's it's not good fr 99% of us.
Does the pawn--I mean author--think we are making any sacrifices in this "formulation and promotion" of right wing economic and military priorities?
5
It’s unfortunate to see an “economic analyst” dumb down the causes of a economic shift he expressly admits is potentially short term. This type of article fuels misunderstanding of the wide range of factors that lead to economic conditions and the cheering and booing of presidents as a result. This doesn’t help encourage productive learning or dialogue
It’s also unfortunate to see the NYT publish this type of article a mere 12 months into Trump’s presidency. I hope it’s not an attempt to show some balance in their journalism. If so, it is a weak attempt based on the merits of the article.
3
"Economic analyst"? Moore is and has always been nothing more than a flack for trickle down.
Here is what Trump gets credit for; opening up the era of a new unbridled capitalism. He has shredded regulations to protect the environment and consumers. He has given major corporations huge tax cuts. No wonder the stock market is booming. bottom line profits will soar. Watch income inequality margins explode.
3
For those looking to buy a new washing machine and/or install some solar cells on their roof to cut their electricity costs, the Donald's tax cut may be more than offset by the Donald's tax increase (tariffs on those items), as the game of picking winners and losers becomes more and more a who's-your-crony rather than the impartial result of consumer choices on a free market. Trump's support of cronies is as bad as Obama' was, only difference is in who the cronies are.
Mr. Moore, the economy has been growing since 2009.
6
If liberals are not enjoying their marker returns and tax cuts under Trump, why not donate the proceeds?
1
Mr Edward has made a good proposal, liberals gaining from the rising stock market should donate their winnings to defeat republicans and Trump if and when he runs for reelection.
Yeah, wow, the economy, the economy! Don’t you get it people, the economy! That is all what counts. Who cares about democracy, society, environment.
There was once a person in charge in Germany, where in his early years people also pointed to economy and unemployment to silence doubts about the other atrocious things going on.
8
It is hard to have a civil society when you have nothing to eat. Society and economy go together.
1
Antje, would be saying the same thing if the same market returns were present under Obama?
What a moron...Hitler was appointed, Trump elected. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship. We are a democracy.
Go back to the 7th grade.
Mr. Moore -- you know, Germany economy was booming from 1933 to 1939. Who should get credit for that, I wonder?
4
"Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation (and) a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign"
....Oh. No bias there.
4
You'd be following the Pied Piper to the river to give Trump credit for this economy. Because the economy doesn't serve just some of the people some of the time. It has to serve all the people all the time. Or as Conservatives have suggested for decades--wait until it trickles down and everyone will be really happy.
Trump and the GOP just signed a sweeping tax reform law that took what two pennies I had to rub together away and gave it back to all the bankers, all the industrialists, all the wealth hoarders in this country so DJT can stay in power.
Guess what--I am not happy and this economy isn't serving my interests nor do I believe this is magically going to change in the next few years. In fact I am beginning to believe my family is going to become entrenched in a pseudo-type corporate slavery as the next few decades move forward. No access to capital because there are no assets to secure it. No access to additional family members who can produce more capital because they are being denied, or scared, from joining us here in the country of "opportunity". No vote because now money talks louder than any collective group of screaming impoverished can talk.
No... what Trump should get is, indeed, not credit.
3
My fear is that a Trump monarchy will set a new trend.
=========================================
If the economy improves and people support Trump, we have a US of T,
a United States of Trump. Is that what we really want for American, a kingdom?
In addition we may see fascism and monarchy springing up all over the world.
Is that what we want? Why not support democracy, now, not Trumpland ?
3
I have always felt that in our economic and political systems, the President typically gets way too much credit when things are going well economically, and way to much blame when they are not. I believe this applies particularly in President Trump’s situation, given his short time in office. A much better test or how much credit and/or blame he deserves will be a few years down the road when we see what the effects of the increasing federal deficit will do to the credit markets and employment. Things may not look so rosy as they do now,unless he shows the “guts” to take on our out of control Entitlements programs, something he was unwilling to even discuss during the campaign".
Government provides consistency and reliability in the way we all conduct ourselves by offering good administrative services, infrastructure available to all, and courts to enforce contracts and civilized behavior, but it does not control the economy as it would in a Marxist socialist country. The economy is somewhat affected by interest rates charged by the reserve banking system, and the proportion of taxes spent to keep the country civilized, but that does not do a lot to control economic expansion which is determined by economic activities beyond the control of government. The recovery from the crash of 2008 took about eight years to occur. The government might have shortened that time a little by borrowing money and repairing and improving the worn out infrastructure, but the real growth that would expand continuously required time to develop.
Then one must be careful about using the securities markets to determine how well the real economy is doing. Our businesses, our big businesses, are mostly corporations with publically traded stocks which are the means for rewarding top management for performance. The acts of a good administrator may not be realized for years after they act, but that is never considered in these compensation arrangements. The stock prices go up, the executives compensation goes up. If the company's sales and production rises or the costs are contained and equity is shared less widely, the result will be higher profits and higher stock prices.
The full impact of Republican domination of the government has fortunately not happened. The complete gutting of our safety net including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which is the ultimate goal of GOP politics has been prevented by a Democrat rear guard action. If and when this happens the gap between rich and poor will blossom to an even greater extent than it is now. The true measure of the health of a nation and its economy is how we treat the suffering among us and leaving the stagnantly waged work force and those at the bottom is still the number one aim of Republican oligarchs.
3
Please. If the economy were tanking, it WOULD be Trump's fault because it was booming before he arrived. The economy has been expanding since 2009 - it's one of the longest bull markets in history. He is riding the coattails of Obama's work in turning the economy around in 2009. In a year or two, once Trump's trade policies and tax cut start to take effect, THEN he can start taking credit. I strongly suspect by then we will be in recession - and even then it won't really be Trump's fault. Markets run in cycles. He happened to catch the wave coming in, but I doubt it will last long enough to carry him through 2020.
3
Ultra rich getting richer. Corporations praising this president in hopes of getting more help to make even more profits. Middle class will see very much smaller financial rewards, but the bottom of the barrel are forgotten and considered a drag on the economy.
7
If the economy is heading down when you take office, and then you manage to turn it around (like Obama) then you get some credit for it. If the economy is heading up when you take office, and it continues to go up (like Trump), then you don't necessarily get credit. This doesn't seem hard.
11
Especially when you know that during his first year in office, a president is merely implementing the budget signed into law by his predecessor, whereas his own first budget only starts to be implemented during his second year in office ...
Nobody is giving ME any more money. My utilities, cable or cell providers, healthcare providers, insurance companies, mortgage interest have not gone down. In fact, the economy daily finds new ways to gouge, trick, cheat and otherwise squeeze every last nickel out of me. What exactly is "booming?"
7
This op-ed contributor speculates that Trump would be re-elected in 2020 if middle class wages go up along with the economy. Can't happen. Corporations cannot move to wage fairness because Wall Street is now in charge and increasing wages significantly would cause profits to decline, stock values to follow. There is too great a gap in wages for workers to make up even over a decade of raises.
What corporations can do is give the appearance of wage increases by paying a few percentage points more. This is in fact what has happened over the last 20 years: wages increased, but did not generally keep pace with inflation. These phony pay increases make people happy for a short while until they discover they are more or less right where they were before.
The other reason corporations can't increase wages for workers is that it would cut into big salaries for managers. Once you are on the gravy train, you don't want to get off. The managers from the CEOs down to middle managers expect to get big raises and bonuses. If they don't get them, they could jump ship for other opportunities. They've been long conditioned to high pay and, in fact, in normal American fashion, have based their lifestyle and spending plans on the big salaries.
"Trump's economy" now is thanks to Obama and a general recovery from 2008 around the world. If that continues, our situation could be better, too. This time next year, and the year after, is the time to judge what Trump has or has not accomplished.
6
Stephen Moore is bound to see the bright side to Trump's "economic policy" since he is one of the architects. To read this piece, it sounds that Trump solved all of the economic woes of the United States in one year. Has blue-collar manufacturing really turned around? Mr Moore says that half a million mining jobs have been added. If so, where? Seems more like self-congratulations than facts to support the celebration.
7
With only 50,000 coal miners now working, clearly the half million wasn’t there!
1
Trump "saved" the coal industry…that must be the mining jobs he's talking about….he revived a DEAD industry to pay back one of his big donors who owns coal mines…whoopi do.
1
Those who are happy with a "sugar high" economy will enjoy themselves immensely until the crash.
Personally, I'm doing quite well right now, but I'd rather settle for more modest returns and live in a decent country.
10
Well said and I agree completely.
2
"...few presidents can claim to have presided over the kind of economy the United States is enjoying now."
Wrong. This is not surprising coming from a partisan hack like Stephen Moore. GDP growth for Trump's first year was 2.3%. That's the same as the average growth over the preceding 3 years, better than 2016 but worse than 2014 and 2015. The rate of job creation under Trump is the worst since 2010. And as for the increase in wealth that Moore brags about, the increase in U.S. household and nonprofit wealth under Obama was a massive $35 trillion, or 65%. Now THAT was unprecedented.
So, yes there most certainly are presidents who presided over the kind of economy the U.S. is enjoying now. Obama was one. Clinton was another. Under those two administrations more jobs were created than have been created under the previous seven Republican administrations combined. They rank 2nd and 1st, respectively, for best declines in the unemployment rate out of the 12 post-WW2 presidencies.
Like many Republican partisans, Moore sees what he wants to see and ignores the rest.
6
Well, maybe, just maybe, one could say that Trump is the cause of the stock market going up. However, if you look at the rest of the world, you'll see that every other economically powerful country has the same growth factor, with higher growth factors in some of those countries.
Therefore the real reason is clearly the overall improvement of the global economy. And whom do we thank for that? None other than Barack Obama. Funny how a senior fellow at the right-wing Heritage foundation overlooks global growth. Ah well, Republicans will say anything to make their party look good, so naturally Moore tries to prove something with fake studies.
2
If Mr. Moore is correct, let's all hope that the Market crashes like it's 1929, that U-3 labor underutilization (that's unemployment) hits 15%, that housing depreciates like tulips, and the masses riot in the streets.
That way, if impeachment/conviction doesn't pan out, Trump will surely lose in a landslide in 2020.
A robust Depression would be worthwhile if it lead to NEVER TRUMP.
Pray for the worst, so we can recapture the best.
2
So you are wishing hardship on OTHER people because you dislike someone? Very nice indeed.
The current (Obama) expansion has been going on for a very long time in by historical standards. A recession is definitely in our future - and in Trump's future, if he lasts long enough.
Will Stephen Moore be singing the same song when the recession hits? Given his record of truthfulness, or rather lack thereof, I doubt it.
2
Yes, the Trump administration gets credit for the relative health of the economy, in the same way that the Obama administration did not. However, economic cycles are much longer than one year. The real "tale of the tape" will be the long term repurcussions of the tax cuts, of economic "wall building" and protectionism, as well as the trickle down effect of a destabilized world as the result of an incoherent sword rattler.
So, yes. The first year has been good, but primarily for those who were already doing well and certainly not for the 99% of the country and the long term jury is still way out.
1
There are some serious causal problems with Mr. Moore's logic. But they pale in comparison to the problems with Trump's logic. Give him credit, but a serious president with integrity would nod to a predecessor who left the economy in decent shape.
But we will see if Mr. Moore is in line to blame Trump when the economy goes south, and it will--complex systems fluctuate, and even the smartest people or neural networks can only predict when, how or how much with wide margins of error. I'm sure Trump will have a list of responsible parties if and when that day comes--Obama, Clinton, Mueller, twitter, California, etc.
The author is right that Trump would be blamed if the economy tanked in 2017. However, his assertion - that Trump should therefore get credit because it didn't - is a fallacy. It would be wrong to place all the blame or credit on Trump for 2017 economic trends, as obviously there is always a big hangover effect from one administration to the next, along with a lot of other factors presidents don't control (e.g., the world economy as a whole is up).
I think it is safe to say that the stock market likely received a bump after passage of his tax legislation. However, the short-term positive effect must be weighed against the long-term effect: adding trillions to the already large national debt. Perhaps the tax bill will wind up being a net positive, but it's far from a certainty at this point.
Admittedly, the economy has done better than I as a moderate/liberal would have expected under Trump. However, I definitely think it is a bit too early to claim that Trump's economic policies are a resounding success. Time will tell.
1
I feel like the general consensus for a long time has been that economic policy usually takes year to actually have any real world effect. And then you can debate how much effect said policies can actually have since something like 85% of our economy is controlled by the private sector.
A lot of this growth appears to be unsustainable. Almost every investment instrument appears to be over inflated if not in a bubble currently. Why? well because we continue to have cheap credit. Now, with the Dollar being drastically down US securities are essentially discounted. Not to mention that a weak dollar is incredibly beneficial for US companies that sell a lot of goods or services overseas. Finally the tightening of the labor market. We're currently sitting at absurdly low unemployment levels which are unsustainable and while it's bound to cause some wage growth a prolonged labor shortage will have some drastic ramifications for the economy. Also, if we kick out all the "bad hombres" there will be some drastic labor shortages which will be pretty painful.
The idea that the president, or politicians in general, have much control over the economy is for the most part pure fantasy.
1
China is growing at 6.5 percent . Is trump supposed to get credit for that too?
Heres a thought: Maybe the world economy is driving our economy. In this light Trump crashing our international trade agreements in hopes of replacing them with personal deals between himself and other leaders ala Putin, is sabotage.
IF Trumponomics is the reverse of Obamanomics we should expect a 13,000 point drop in the DOW. Abandoning the trillion dollar solar and wind energy sector is a good start. If Trump expects to emultate Reagan remember Reagan tripled the defense budget and, in the 80s, a barrel of oil plummeted to 11 dollars, felling the Soviet Union. Cutting government spending and raising oil prices might be the opposite of Reaganomics, so expect the opposite.
1
During President Obama's presidency, we heard a constant dirge from Republicans about the "lackluster" amount of growth and the few jobs being created. Both criticisms were false, but tainted the view of the populace on the recovery. We don't hear that from Democrats, so, of course, there is a more rosy view of the economy now. Actually, growth has been steady for nearly a decade.
The problem is, what has Trump actually done to take credit for this? Rolled back regulations? In many cases, that was stopping regulations that would have taken effect, but did not - that means preserving the status quo. And that's before we get into the cost-benefit analysis of, say, protecting workers from having their tips stolen, or the health effects of environmental protections.
Legislation? Only the tax cut bill, which has only just begun to take effect, and whose benefits widely accrue to the wealthiest.
Increased confidence? Puh-leese. It's hard to feel confident when you're worried your company will be the focus of a Twitter tirade - or, slightly more worrisome, that we might stumble into a nuclear war.
Trump deserves credit only for not ruining the economy. Yes, it is now becoming his - the tax cut bill marks a significant shift - and yes, for a while, at least, growth may continue. But if you want to know why we don't give him credit, it's because he's done nothing to earn it - and if things continue to go as they have, we'll be looking at a downturn soon enough.
1
Yes, "It's Trump's Economy Now" on tax cut cocaine plus steroids, which has a very short sighted Trumpian operative feeling euphoric.
Who can be surprised that dropping 1.5 trillion on top of an decent economic picture would fail to set fire to investor emotion?
But eventually the drug hi will recede and withdrawal will strike investors who inevitably will face a bare minimum of $10 trillion in national debt with the predictable Federal deficits of 500 billion+ in perpetuity.
This bonfire feels good now, but the wood shed is empty.
1
"If the economy were tanking, President Trump would get the blame. Shouldn’t he get credit when it’s booming?"
If the economy tanks, or the markets implode, do Trump (and Moore) have to promise to accept blame?
Please. We all know that Trump is taking credit only as long as the economy is doing well.
It is not "Trump's economy" just because you want to believe 1) that the stock market is the economy; 2) that the economy is working for everyone; or 3) that Trump had anything to do with the productivity of the American worker.
The economy during the Obama administration was characterized by a monotonic decline in unemployment from mid-2009 (the depth of the great recession) through the end of 2016. GDP growth was modest but consistently positive, averaging about 2%. GDP growth in 2017 was slightly better and unemployment has continued to drop. However, in both cases, these appear to follow trends of the Obama years.
The stock market has responded to the election of Trump by registering massive gains - so massive that they resemble the exponential increases seen in the prior to the 2001 tech bubble collapse. If I were the Trump administration or a republican, I wouldn't be taking any victory laps, especially considering the fact that Trump administration policies -- protectionist trade policies and anti-immigrant policies in particular -- are likely to have negative impacts on GDP.
But on a more important note, I'm sorry Mr. Moore, but even if we experienced the most astounding economy in the history of the republic, it would in no way compensate for the destructive effect on our institutions of having as president a racist who has no understanding of or respect for the rule of law or of the values of our Democracy.
Readers should keep in mind that Mr. Moore does not have a Ph.D. in economics and that his forte is political spin rather than economic analysis.
2
Yes, I'm an avowed never-Trumper, but this is pretty easy. The economy was on a healthy glide-path when he took office. This is a continuation of that path. If his policies would have soured the path then yes, he would get the blame for it. For sitting on his hands while it stayed good....he should get credit for that?
1
Hmm, bread prices are going way up, gas prices are going up, the stock market is soaring - I know the "experts" say it isn't inflation, but it sure looks like it to me.
Perfect example of cherry-picking statistics to make your point...there were 2.2 million jobs created in 2016, and 2.1 million in 2017, a decrease iun teh number of jobs created if my math is up to par. GDP was 2.3% for 2017, not 3%. Yes, and several companies were giving our bonuses (and publicizing them) after the tax cut legislation was signed, but they failed to mention the layoffs that were also happening - how many jobs in Indiana were created by paying off Carrier? And, the stock market gains were more to do with the health of the bottom lines of the companies that make up the Dow than anything the great negotiator did.
Things will get better even faster if we leave NAFTA, which has now officially destroyed more good paying jobs than the Great Depression ever did in absolute numbers. At least the Great Depression had an ending. NAFTA just keeps right on rolling on and destroying communities and jobs 24 years after Bill Clinton signed it into being. How did the party that claims to be pro-labor ever justify that move?
We're now 10 years into this cycle and based on history, recessions come around every 7-11 years. A "red-hot" economy always burns out, so let's make sure that Mr Moore gives Trump just as much credit for the oncoming downturn as he has for recent growth.
1
The global economy has a life of its own. It rises and falls, expands and contracts on its own schedule. The President of the United States can affect this rise and fall around the edges, but he or she does not and cannot control the global business cycle. No matter who won this election the national economy was going to get better. That is what it does.
In choosing President Trump, Americans decided they like his vision for who should benefit most from the coming expansion better then Hillary Clinton’s vision of who should benefit most. THAT is what Presidents do. They shape national policy in response to economic trends and their policies affect who suffers most when things fall apart and who benefits most when things improve. You can choose to look at this picking of winners and losers as a bestowal of gifts, as Mitt Romney does. But if you do so, you must also admit that no matter who is in office, gifts are given.
The tax reform bill recently passed has made it clear who gets the gifts this time around under President Trump and a GOP Congress. The people who will benefit most are certainly not those most in need.
When you sacrifice things like universal health care initiatives and regulations that protect working people and the poor, you can ramp up an economy that is controlled by the 1%. Permanent employment is still down, we're now a contractor economy, and the de-regulation push will lead to holes in consumer protections that create conditions like those preceding the 2008 housing crisis. Remember Wall Street crashed because those financial houses were knowingly and deceitfully selling junk bonds based on debt held by people who should never have been given loans. Yes let's gin all that up again!
'America First' is putting pressure on manufacturer's to create jobs here. And while I give Mr. Trump's advisers their due there, it is short-sighted, and long-term will promote a USA isolated and cut off from global forces. I agree with Thomas Friedman that the way forward in a globalized economy that most benefits the greatest amount of Americans is to lower the price of Universal Education through University level and make sure we're at the cutting edge. Similarly promoting immigration policies that discourage the best and the brightest from locating and studying in the USA hurts our innovative edge.
The best way to promote blue-collar growth is to provide training to young people and re-training to older blue-collar workers in skilled trades. Giving them solid marketable skills.
Remember every semi driver is about to lose her job when vehicles go autonomous.
I worked with a company that stopped funding R&D. It's profits were great for a year or two.
1
What exactly has Trump done to underwrite the economic miracle? Nearly every factor cited by the author as contributing to the current rise in prosperity either hasn't happened (large scale Obamacare reform, change in climate policy, budget priorities) or hasn't yet taken effect (tax reform, net neutrality, new head of the Fed), or is tied up in the courts (executive orders, regulation repeal). There's no mention here of something important that business does like from politicians-predictability and stability. That the economy has boomed despite the constant tweet storm and petty bickering coming out of the White House suggests the economy may be doing well in spite of who's President. Ironic that this denizen of the Heritage Foundation inadvertently may prove another point his organization is fond of touting: that how well or poorly the overall US economy does has little to do with who sits in the White House.
My first thought is that many of the weak points so frequently cited during Obama's term are still around: low labor force participation, weak wage growth, income inequality, lack of "good" jobs, etc.
My second thought is that the economy really could be rosier. Job growth has actually slowed this year (compared to Obama's last term) and GDP growth for the first three quarters has clocked in at 2.9%. Here are the GDP growth rates for a few other recent presidents (from the BEA):
3.4% Carter
3.0% Reagan 1st term
3.9% Reagan 2nd term
3.5% Clinton 1st term
4.0% Clinton 2nd term
Trump is handicapped by slower population growth (so was Obama) but there is really nothing great about 2.9% growth.
My third thought is that Trump clearly articulated ideas about what he thought was wrong with the economy. Aside from easing federal regulation, nothing Trump complained about has changed. Our trade deficit is larger that last year. Our budget deficit is worse this year. The interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve has been unchanged. The stock market has had a nice run this year, but it did great under Obama also.
It took the country nearly twenty three years for the Dow to reach 1929 highs after the stock market crash that began the Great Depression. President Obama saw a Dow recovery in about five years for the Great Recession. Many analysts believe it could have even been quicker had it not been for Republican obstruction. Republicans like Stephen Moore gave Obama no credit for this accomplishment even though it was brought on by a specific set of policies as opposed to Trump who has just been gliding on the work of his predecessor.
2
Do you think that the "rollback of regulations" has no cost? That rolling back regulations just means free money for corporations with no consequences that can be quantified in dollars?
No. The cost is simply shifted to the rest of us.
If you're supposed to be the smart conservative voice, please be smarter.
1
And so? A snapshot of an economy in the short term does not a president make. If Trump, for instance, gets us into a nuclear war in which a quarter million, half million or million innocent civilians die in a matter of days, the economy is not going to mean squat. We must judge Trump on far more than a snapshot of the economy.
If I systematically get rid of all precautionary spending, my economy is going to be great -- for awhile. But when I finally need insurance, or global warming increases its effect , or shortages in agricultural workers raises prices, the temporary savings that seemed so helpful will be demonstrated to have been short-sighted.
By the way, how did Trump manage to improve the economy of the rest of the world at the same time? I suppose he used the same method he used to eliminate plane crashes.
Nice try, but no. It's only Trump's economy if the stats have reversed course, for better or worse, in some meaningful way, but they haven't. Everything's been on this upward trend since Obama took office. Remember, FDR's New Deal didn't really kick into effect until after his presidency. Now, I would posit that it's mostly Obama's actions which have contributed to this growth, but Trump's rollback of regulations has helped accelerate the stock market through 2017 and into 2018. However, regulations don't exist simply to stifle economic growth; regulations are in place to protect American citizens' health. Sure, the average American might have a few more bucks in their wallet, but at the cost of the air they breathe, the water they drink and food they eat. These are things we can't buy with our tax bill bonuses from the gods.
Why is it a double standard not to give credit for continuing a positive trend, and criticize for breaking one?
Trump inherited the advantage of all 5 major economies recovering and the US moving forward slowly but consistently. The current exuberance is due to Trump's actions to make the oligarchs dreams come true as described by Jane Mayer in Dark Money. These include a 14% tax cut to the 1% but starves the US treasury, regulations rollback that include removal of super fund responsibility and pollution controls, control of the federal courts by judges recommended by the Heritage Foundation (Koch brother creation) and a foreign policy that makes our enemies larger, our friends fewer, and the need to increase our military budget mandatory. If we add the reality that our debt increased by $7.6 trillion due to the financial crisis, $1.4 trillion for injured veterans, and $1.1 trillion for tax cuts, we have to conclude that an increase to the treasury is required or a reduction in the budget is forced. In the face of a budget that can not be balanced today, we need to add $340 billion for infrastructure, $1.2 billion for disaster relief, and a blank check for the military. What should we give up? The euphoria for Trump is the rabble developed by Charles, David, and Rupert to destroy the federal government as we know it. I wish you would ask them what it is going to look like? I think a strong central government is out. I think a pawnbroker architecture is in. In 2019, China could break us in a day by cashing bonds. Rename your Heritage Foundation to Heritage Forgotten.
It depends on the shape of the curve. If things go along on the same curve as Obama left, then no, Trump does not deserve much credit. If the economy does dramatically better or worse, then we can ascribe credit or blame to Trump.
Wait, but Trump inherited an incredibly strong economy and hasn't really done anything substantive yet. Sure, his appointments and deregulation will shape the economy in the future, but giving him any sweeping credit at this point is wildly premature. If you were writing a year or two in the future looking back on the tax reform and all the businesses that'd returned to the US, I'd get it. But to write this article now is just...sad.
1
The reason economies are growing in the US as well as EU is because of the monies pumped in by the central governments. Both US and EU printed billions and put that money in the economy, and we see the results now. Who typically backs Keynesian policy? Not the Republicans!
In a country where we live by the minute and we teach ourselves to expect results quickly, the media spins ideas that all is good in a matter of months. Trump took advantage of what was already before him and bragged about it by taking short term credit. He knew Americans either don't know the difference beween long or short term or they simply don't care. So, who cares if it's Trump's economy or not?
A rising tide raises all boats of course but real estate is the asset that benefits most from inflation of the money supply. Therefore, Trump is pushing for a boom to erode the cost of the hundreds of millions he and Jared have borrowed to stay afloat in the real estate game.
But the years of business cycle growth show this growth phase is already swimming upstream. Time to raise interest rates and see who is swimming naked. I'm pretty sure it will be Stephen Moore and Donald Trump.
1
No president can take total blame or credit for an economy. They can take blame or credit for a policy that changed the economy as a result, but even that should also be tied to Congress unless they did it through executive memo/order. Too much of those happened under Obama; one of my criticisms of him. And what about when the Fed raises the prime? You know it's coming, has to come because of all the free money printed over the last 8+ years. We'll be feeling that over the next 10, regardless of who is President, at some time the piper must be paid.
Someday, Stephen Moore will say something that I agree with. Someday perhaps, but not yet.
Not until he uses his majority party powers in Congress to create a budget. We are still living under Obama's budget and riding the Obama economic wave.
You can bet that if the economy had tanked in 2017, Trump, Moore and their ilk would be calling it Obama's legacy. At this point, nearly everything we hear from the other side can be fairly labeled as "spin." They are weaving a narrative for their supporters, and it's merely a happy coincidence if the facts happen to line up with the story.
Repeat after me: The economy is not just the stock market.
Many "regular" Americans are not positively affected by a healthy stock market because they don't have retirement plans or pensions, not to mention that they don't have any spare money left over to directly invest in the market.
1
Heritage foundation has brought its statistical expertise from the analysis of global warming to the economic analysis. Just like with global average temperatures, anyone with an semester of basic statistics and without an agenda looks at a chart of economic indicators and says 'things are a stable trend upward.' However, again like global warming and the infamous and new debunked hiatus, they have cherry picked a data point '1.6 percent' and tried to infuse it with significance as a baseline. It is funny to see how they take the same manipulative approach to data and in one case use it to attempt to deny an underlying trend and in another attempt to deny that trends existence.
Continuing with the trend of hypocrisy here, the tax cut will undoubtedly have a positive effect on growth, it will also be extremely expensive - something that the heritage foundation may have cared about under a different administration. I personally believe a corporate tax cut was needed and the logic for it was sound, but the accompanying personal income tax cuts for the wealthy will create enormous budget deficits.
Lastly, the left and right were screaming that Trump was going to ruin the economy. That is because he was promising to ruin the economy. Nothing has been prove to ruin the economy like protectionism and that is what he was selling. Thankfully he was just kidding - so far.
The best we can say about Trump is that he hasn't broken things and that in itself is pleasant surprise.
I was a math major and I would suggest the change in slope of the important trend lines is a good indicator, with real world analysis about other trends and occurrences for balance. Based on that measure, he gets a pass, but no big kudos as he as not bent the curve much in the good or bad direction. This is not that deep of a question.
I have no issue with Trump taking credit for something he may or may not have enacted. I have an issue when he takes credit and blames previous presidents for no conceivable reason
So President Bill Gates was responsible for the economic boon during his presidential term, right? Oh, I'm Sorry. Bill CLINTON was the President and Gates was the one responsible. Every country rides the world economic wave. Our Presidents try to take credit if it's going well here. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
The real test for this administration will be in the quality of life improvements for the bottom this. So far they have been forgotten and are barely making any progress on the "trickle."
There's something utterly wrong, from a rational point of view, with the main idea behind this op-ed's way of thinking.
It is making the all too common mistake of confounding correlation and causation.
The only way to know whether a debt and/or deficit increase, and a GDP increase or a slowing down economy or changing wages etc. have been CAUSED by a president's policies, is to take a look at those policies, and then analyse what exactly they CAUSED.
When you inherit a STRUCTURAL $1.4 trillion deficit, as Obama for instance did, that means that the debt will go up for more than a decade even when Obama wouldn't sign any unpaid for new spending bill into law.
The same goes for GDP: the non partisan CBO has shown that Obama's stimulus measures would create a solid foundation for a growing economy and low unemployment for at least a decade. And if you know that a president's first year in office is a year when the budget approved by the previous president is implemented, you cannot possibly argue that what happens during that year must BY DEFINITION, as the author is doing here, be CAUSED by a Trump budget, as there wasn't any Trump budget yet ... .
It's sad that high-quality newspapers as the Times continue to publish op-eds that don't take this basic logical distinction into account, and as such, continue to confound ordinary citizens about what is happening in this country and what a president has been or not been causing himself.
When Stephen Moore is your best champion that says a lot of things none of them good. Mr. Moore is a champion of not being able to do the numbers correctly (See multiple newspapers that won't print his editorials anymore). And here we have him selectively using numbers without context. This is the favorite past time of professional conservative economists (as opposed to conservative professional economists).
2
Who benefits from this booming economy? People who are already doing well enough to have a 401k, a stock portfolio, etc. I know it is in bad taste to even mention people working in virtual slavery for big-box stores or Amazon warehouses, because they are not participating in this boom. Not remotely.
Let me help you: building anything takes time, while destroying something takes moments. That is, helping to recover an economy takes years, certainly not months, which means Obama should get the credit for this now booming economy. On the other hand, if the economy crashed inexplicably, its Trump's to own because its so easy to crash. How? POTUS twitter habits for one.
With all the serious problems occurring within the country along with a President and his enablers that are doing everything to circumvent the Constitution, we are suppose to take a column like this seriously? The fact of the matter is, given the real fragility of the American economy, a President and administration whom are looking inward and a government with the excuse of increasing deficits, once given the opportunity, will start systematically dismantling what is left of the social safety net in America along with medicare and social security, it is only then Americans will will consider the question about whose responsible for the state of the economy.
It’s much easier for companies to develop and execute new strategies knowing the already incredibly complex regulatory burdens won’t increase under this administration.
1
Moore was a senior advisor to Trump campaign, so like Trump, will take credit for that which is not created by Trump.
No mention here of the expiration of tax cuts for those of us in the 80-90%.
No mention of Trump's reckless views on trade, and how he's basically given the world economy to China.
There's also the decency of caring about the future and intelligence of providing for the long run: "overturn Obama policies on taxes, regulations, energy, climate change, net neutrality, budget priorities and health care" - primarily ways to make the future worse for humankind. Climate change is by far the thing we should all be most concerned about - it is a far greater threat than terrorism or immigration. Anything that rolls back progress on energy and the environment is short-sighted, and fundamentally immoral.
It's rather sad to see Mr. Moore having to work so hard to try to salvage something from the chicanery and chaos of the Trump takeover, but this is hardly economics.
If Mr. Moore's favorite football team had come out of a disastrous slump and went on an unbroken eight year winning streak, and in the ninth year replaced their winning coach, would he give the new guy a bonus because the streak continued?
Donald Trump is entitled to stand before the American people and proudly claim, in 2017 he did not derail the economic growth put in motion by his predecessor, President Obama.
What effect the new policies - which, by the way, he's only just now putting into place - will have, we'll learn soon enough.
Pretending the tax cuts and trade policies passed in December somehow influenced the previous eleven months of the year is the kind of economic voodoo we've come to expect from the Heritage Foundation. And it's as obvious a come-over as the President's.
Moore writes, "If the economy had nose-dived in 2017, there’s no doubt the media would have pounced on Trump policies as disgraceful failures. But with the economy red-hot, he gets little credit. That’s a double standard." I disagree. A good economy in 2017 would be a continuation of what Trump inherited. A bad economy in 2017 would be something new. It's not a double standard to point that out.
Rich people have much higher marginal propensities to save and invest than non-rich people who have higher marginal propensities to consume. The world-wide shift in tax burdens from the rich to the middle class has created a tremendous imbalance where there is a much greater supply of lendable and investable funds relative to securities to invest in or projects to lend to with good returns. Bitcoin and the explosion of new cryptocurrencies is only the latest manifestation of the worldwide excess of loanable and investable funds.
The dominating force propelling securities prices is the massive tax-policy-induced increase in inequality that causes the excess of loanable and investable funds, and that just got a lot stronger with the new tax bill.
The quandary can be described as someone who has seen the first and last page of a book, but does not know either how long the book is or what happened between the first and last pages. We know that a massive transfer to the rich will happen. We know that the middle class has a much higher marginal propensity to consume than the rich. We know that initially the rich, or if you rather the job creators, use their additional after-tax income to invest. This extra investment initially boosts securities prices and enables investments to occur that might have otherwise been undertaken. What we don't know is the path between the enactment of the tax shift and the eventual financial crisis.."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4139026
1
No, because the world’s economy is booming. If anything, it’s a extension of the boom started in Obama’s administration.
1
The author's conclusion rests on the truth of the following assumption: if a president is usually blamed for a poor economy, a president ought to be given credit when the economy is doing well.
The author then reasons that since the economy is doing well, and Trump is our president, he ought to be given credit!
But, no (moderately) serious thinker ought to accept the relevant assumption as true. A president's causal powers are not that great. Unless Moore can provide the reader with a substantive account of causation, any sensible reader should look at this article as claptrap.
1
Tens of thousands of workers lost their jobs in January - thanks, corporate tax cut! Millions of Americans live in poverty - even though they are working. The minimum wage is 20 years out of date merely from an inflation standpoint. Tens of thousands of WalMart workers make so little they are eligible for food stamps, as is true for workers at many major corporations. A growing number of 70 year olds are going back to work because they can't buy food and pay heat bills at the same time. Yet people like you keep talking about a roaring economy, a great economy. Do you ever ask, "Whose economy"?
It's all Trump, and it's all good. Still not sick of winning!
Trump baby. All Trump. I saved $200 on my taxes by switching to Trump. Thanks to him, we got busier at work, I got a raise, I got double my marriage deduction, and double the deduction for my kids. All in all, life has been great since Jan 2017. Oh yeah, thanks to Trump's boost to the stock market, my roth IRA is over a million dollars, and I still have 20 years left for it to gain interest!
the gutting of every kind of financial regulation made possible by the Trump administration has given way to a free-for-all in which the rich get richer until it will all come crashing down again just like 2008...by then Trump probably will be a lot richer and most Americans wont...
Are wages going up? That's the indicator that matters.
He even admits that wages have been stagnant and REMAIN stagnant. Pinning your hopes on the tax cuts actually increasing wages is a joke. Because if the job market is that tight wages would have already gone up.
Tossing someone a $1000 bonus doesn't help them next year.
I think we have seen this science fiction mini-series before. It was first launched in 1980 with the conservative Reagan Administration. Note: "conservative" means more for the rich, less for everyone else.
The heroes of the series are the superrich and big corporations, who run through the film yelling "Freedom," as they drastically decrease taxes on the rich; de-regulate banks, finance, and big environmental polluters; and run wild with their consumer fraud schemes until the economy collapses.
The villains are the poor, the scientists with their data and facts, the gullible working stiffs, and the social activists who demand the wealth be shared, the quality of everyone's life can be improved, and justice, education, health, and opportunity should be available to more Americans than just the wealthiest members of society.
The plot is always the same: cut taxes drastically for the rich, greatly increase military spending, run the government treasury into the ground. Then scream the deficit is too high, and do everything possible to end government programs for the people, their children, the aged, and environmental protection.
Fool us once, shame on them; fool us twice, shame on us. Who said that?
The economic improvement started under Obama. The one thing that Trump has done to help the economy is that he finally stopped talking it down after he took office. The perception that the economy is improving is fueling consumer purchases, which is actually helping the economy. During the campaign we heard Trump constantly berate the state of the economy, often citing the low "labor participation rate." which is still low, but he hasn't mentioned it once now that he's president. The "labor participation rate" is low because members of the large "Baby Boom" generation are retiring by the millions and people are living longer, so retirees now comprise a larger percentage of the population. The perception that the economy was terrible under Obama and now it's great under Trump is entirely the result of the attitudes of Trump supporters who aren't smart enough to know when they're being conned.
This is Obama's Economy. He and his administration made it happen. Trump is slowly destroying growth. Recent reports in indicate unemployment claims are going up, wages continue to be stagnate and the stock market growth is the result of corporations buying back their stock. 80% of stocks are owned by the 1%. Obama built a strong economic foundation after the GOP financial collapse in 2008 and the Trump tax cuts will destroy this in 2 years.
1
Nice to read a fair-minded analysis in the NYT about President Trump. Not that I am a swooning fan of your Prez, mind. As I lamented in another post today, I could go on and on about his deficiencies but for the word limit.
Yet the economy under his stewardship is taking off like a rocket. 3% plus growth quarter on quarter is my prediction for 2018. Of course, he ought to get some credit for this. It is terrible that he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to regulations but it is undeniable that the regulatory framework had become a bit too much.
Though there is a lot to criticise about Mr. Trump's approach, it is distressing to see the liberal media refusing to give him credit when due. Another case in point is his offer expanding the deal for dreamers to some 1.8 million immigrants, including those who were eligible but never applied under DACA. Though I am against parts of the plan, chiefly the silly idea of spending on the wall, this was generous and could have been acknowledged as such.
However, the writer is mistaken if he thinks that all this will help Mr. Trump beyond a point in November. Your president has made more enemies than friends and the result will be clear in the mid-terms.
2.7% is now a booming economy?
What ever politicians, the media and citizens may say to frame the debate, it seems pretty obvious that a president isn't resposible for the economy during his/her first year in office. Their influence grows over time and continues well after the leave office.
Deregulation over many years was a major cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Afterward, regulations were restored and enhanced (by Dodd-Frank and other laws and rulings) to make future crises less likely.
Now Pres Trump boasts of the many regulations his administration is eliminating. No one can say what problems will result down the road. Let’s remember to credit Pres Trump if and when the current round of deregulation leads to future destabilization of the economy, the environment, peace, …
Were I Trump or his staff, I would be worried. Like Warren Buffett, most investors and economists know that a hot, overheating or just high performing economy is , eventually, bound to be followed by a movement in the opposite direction. Let us hope that it is not as hot going down as it has been going up.
I always remember Buffett's advice : when things are going badly, it's time to buy because you can get stock cheap. The opposite is true. When the Market is up, stocks become expensive and , eventually, it will all reverse course and all begin a descent.
The idea of giving "credit" to whoever is President at the Time of boom or bust has always seemed a bit silly. Economies are products mostly of policies both public and private that take years to have an effect. After the '29 crash and Great Depression, the Markets took decades to recover. This didn't cause voters to blame FDR or cost him the elections of '36 or '40, though almost nothing he might have desired seemed to occur. If I were Trump, I would worry about a , even a slight reversal of the market, as, unfortunately the long term upward market in the last years have created false expectations.
Not yet!
Let him state that if it goes down in 2020 which sure it will after the "optimistic outlook" bubble bursts and dollar dives , he agrees to take blame.
It depends if Trump did something to make the economy tank. Ths past year's successes are the Obama economy in motion. Let's see if Trump can truly build on it. The stock market is hardly the gauge.
In addition to MANY other shortcomings, Trump does not possess the intelligence or ability to negotiate multilateral "deals". This is why he has withdrawn from NAFTA, TPP and many other multilateral agreements.
His only experience with business has been a lifetime of bullied, dishonest, failed construction projects and fake cons. These are one-on-one ventures, where he has criminally taken advantage of his partners and contractors; no board of directors to oversee his dealings, no residuals except certain Federal anti discrimination suits and MANY NDAs preventing public release of this information.
As we progress further into Trumpland, we are losing economic influence and veritas in Asia and Europe - our major markets. Trump is "running" our country's economy as he ran his companies - without any regard for ethics and outside the law. He is now responsible for what happens and cannot "blame" failures on anyone else. Failure in the near term is immanent as other countries negotiate fair trade throughout the world, excusing the US. Remember this when it happens, and hold Trump and his minions responsible.
2
You shouldn't be allowed to write an article about the economy if you know nothing about the economy. There is always a delayed effect with economic policy and the affects of Trumpinomics will not be fully felt for at least another year. The stock market is not the economy. selling out consumer and environmental protection while slashing the cooperate tax rate with a 1'5 trillion dollar deficit for the sake of cooperate profits, is irresponsible at best. Yes Obama did a great job, it is yet to be seen weather Trumpinomics works. If the deficit increases substantially because of lost revenue, the economic consequences will be huge and the safety net of cutting taxes as stimulus has been sacrificed as a bribe to the economically unenlightened.
6
Who is benefiting from this "booming economy"? That is the question that Trump rode in on from a lot of people who have been left behind. Has that changed for them? It's great for the Mnuchins of the world, but, for them it is always a matter of great or greater still.
1
So many comments here suggest Trump shouldn’t be credited for this economy.
But WHY?
The evidence shows: The things he has said and done have pushed the economy in this current direction. You only needs to look at the stock market. AND looking at the stock market is an IMPORTANT determinant
When individuals or institutions buy stocks in a company, they inject funds into the company so that the company's management can hire more employees, buy more equipment’s (capital stock).
A company that buys things from another company (equipment..) allows that other company to hire more people to produce those things, thus it puts money into the pockets of those employees who go on to buy other items that support the company from which they bought it and other companies in the general economy. This CIRCULAR flow continues until recession.
Look at the stock market, up by 50% since Trump took office. I’m no fan of this president but it is easy to give him credit where credit is due.
your stock market knowledge (or lack of) is showing. Stock is bought in the open market, from selling shareholders, not from the company. When you buy stock, the money is going into the pockets of the selling shareholder, not the company that issued the stock originally. The bigger question is, what is going to happen to the cost of carry on twenty TRILLION dollars of debt to service when our interest rates continue to rise and our deficit continues to grow, unchecked. Can you say INFLATION?
I despise Trump and all he stands for , but have to admit that his "pro-business and finance" policies and attitude probably are improving our economy - in general and especially for the rich. (I'm not rich but have to admit that my retirement fund did very well last year) Yes, Obama pulled our bacon out of the fire and deserves credit for that but at least as of now, it appears Trump is boosting the economy. In the longer term, who knows? But this is a warning to us Democrats that no matter how many people can't stand Trump, they may accept him if there own economic conditions are improving. Our challenge is to craft policies and positions that are better than Trumps and to market them. Identity politics and being perceived as the party that protects illegal immigrants are not going to win the next elections.
4
Lots of betting on optimism in this piece, and if Trump's house of cards doesn't collapse, I'll happily give him credit. But the get-rich-quick scheme of this White House requires that we dismantle structures we may discover (and many are saying) are pretty essential -- not just to bank accounts, but to our overall quality of life. That doesn't seem to matter to this administration.
4
Mr. Moore: What is most striking to me in your opinion piece is how disingenuous you are. I think you well know that: (1) the impact of new economic policy has significant lag time, (2) economic health results from policies set over multiple administrations, (3) the stock market ultimately has a real value, and the recent run-up doesn't reflect that real value - adjustments happen, (4) if the economy were tanking it would at most be only partly Trump's fault after just 1 year, (5) the GOP tax reform will primarily benefit the wealthy, (6) Trump/GOP policies are exacerbating an income gap that's the worst since the 1920s (perhaps 'best' in your mind), (7) by saying Trump should get credit for the "rosy" economy, you are doing exactly what you say the media should not (selective facts over deeper analysis). I think you understand all this - but you choose instead to promote a fantasy.
7
Obama threw an interest free rate party and the economy improved, but given there was no reduction on interest rates passed on to consumers, only the banks (who caused the Global Financial Meltdown) were handsomely rewarded which resulted in the greatest increase in wealth inequality in the US history.
Trump can't throw an interest free party (even if he could, his ego would prevent him from doing the same thing Obama did). Instead he is offering a regulation free party with the cost to health and cleanup years from now in the hands of the up and coming generation of consumers.
He is also selling leases on public lands and raw resources to the rest of the world. He might as well put up a big garage sale banner saying "America for sale, going cheap!" which will of course bring in some much needed investment and cashflow, but like everywhere else that has done this, the boom quickly turns to bust (like it has in Venezuela).
4
I agree with you, Mr. Moore, Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States of America, should get full credit for the health of the economy. The liberals argue that he inherited a booming economy from the previous president, OK, so he did, but he could done things to make it tank, to permit it to remain lackluster and mediocre. In fact once Trump was elected, when he defeated HRC, the economy began to move in ways never seen before in history because business leaders knew a new day was coming, a day without burdensome and stifling regulation, and lower taxes. Unemployment is at historic lows because businesses are hiring once again and because Americans have a president who appreciates work over welfare; a president who appreciates employment in the private rather than public sector. Yes this is Trump's economy, not BHO's. BHO is history, a history which I do want repeated! I support the President. I support Trump. Thank you.
1
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-tariffs-jobs/hung-out-to-dr...
Your Freudian slip is showing.
Funny how did the stock market go from 7000+ to 19,000+ under Obama then? What that didn't count? All job gains under Obama in private sector, Get your facts right!
My toddler blamed me because it rained a few days ago. I explained to her that whether it rains or not on a given day isn't something anyone can control... but if I'd taken Stephen Moore's advice I could have demanded she pick up her room and then claim that I was rewarding her for behaving ANYTIME the weather is agreeable to her which it is 90% of the time (and I could always come up with SOME reason to blame her "bad behavior" when it isn't)... Wow... I bet Moore is a GREAT dad...
Did all the previous commenters miss the bit about 1.6% growth in 2016? The previous administration did not have a wagon heading down a long hill.
It's silly to credit Trump with the performance of this economy. The trajectory was well underway under Obama. The deregulatory policies of the current administration (and tax cuts for the ultra wealthy) may pad an already accelerating economy, but it is incredibly short sighted. The environment will suffer, health will suffer, laborers and consumers will be abused in the name of more corporate profits. Also, the debt-busting tax cuts will mean even fewer resources for infrastructure, health care, and education - all things that determine future economic growth and the wellbeing of the country.
1
This opinion piece of Stephen Moore is really dumb on many different levels.
Taking the larger view away from immediate economic indicators, we should realize we can always have prosperity...for brief periods. If we either cut regulations or, as Trump and company are doing, signal to corporations that they need not worry about "petty enforcement", businesses can run wild doing whatever they like to send profits upward.
This kind of mentality, in fact, is what prevails in the state of Texas most of the time. You wanna pollute, pay low wages and risk the lives of workers without fear of fines or criminal indictments? Texas is your state. "Business friendly" means that when there is a tiny slice of doubt, the benefit goes to corporate power. Meanwhile, those at the economic bottom are hounded by police actions like being thrown in jail for writing a $9 check that bounces or, in the case of some jurisdictions, police round-ups for people who haven't paid misdemeanor fines.
Apple bringing money back? That's the same money they hid away from American taxation waiting to get a better deal. Gee, thanks.
Of course corporations are happy to be getting most of a 1.5 trillion tax cut. Who wouldn't be?
John Boehner, then Speaker of the House, said that America corporations went on an intentional slowdown strike during Obama years. https://tinyurl.com/yakjze8u
So now, the strike is over and they can celebrate being in charge? Great.
Wait 1 year. Then proclaim "Trump's economy".
4
Beware Republican gaslighting. Real people wonder if they're crazy because economists claim we're doing better, when that's not the experience of the vast majority of us in this economy.
A recession is like Hurricane Katrina: Experts focus on the storm, while real people face years of struggle with the destruction left behind, and many never recover. Likewise, economists assure us the recession's over because the *numbers* they look at improve.
2008's economic "hurricane" is ten years old. Meanwhile, our regulators are no longer even trying to spread the recovery's benefits to the broader population. (Goodbye Janet Yellen, because Obama.) Bottom line, we're not crazy.
Gaslighting: http://bit.ly/2DXYcDE
1
Give the Trumpers a win on one score.
No, not the economy, and definitely not employment or salary figures.
What Trumpidors have solidly nailed is that now, as they wanted, I don't trust anything anybody in Washington says.
Certainly not the Heritage Foundation or Mr. Moore, both of whom have demonstrated astonishing ability and a ready will when it comes to exaggeration, fabrication, and talking sciency to sell propaganda.
You can see the strategy. Just a year in, and there's no confidence in anything coming from government. Russia? They won big time, thanks to our President.
When the election comes, if Republicans mange to win, no challenge or complaint will be abided. If Democrats win, no certification of fairness will be accepted.
If Democrats win and Trump claims some kind of irregularity, chaos and instability will ensue.
As big a fraud, as ugly a human as Trump is, the responsibility here lies with Republicans in Congress and the Stephen Moores of the world, people who stood by and watched as The American Experiment was brought to an inglorious end.
Mostly, I find it hard to take seriously this argument from the man who, in 2011, credited Ronald Reagan with a "25-year boom", thereby depriving Clinton of credit for crushing the debt and increasing GDP. I'd guess Obamanomics have another fifteen years before we need to consider Trump.
Assuming we're here in fifteen years after gutting social supports and adding two trillion dollars to the debt.
1
If the economy had nose-dived in 2017, Trump would have blamed Obama. We know our current president.
1
You ask why more people don't give Trump some credit for the good economy. Whether you think a President has that much immediate impact on the economy or not, I think many people feel that as soon as there's some sort of downturn, he won't take any of the blame. He'll find a way to say it was Obama's fault (or even Hillary's fault). So why should people give him credit for the upside when he sure as heck won't take any blame for the downside?
1
My question for Steve Moore comes from the book of Mark: "For what profits a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?"
(Not to mention during a talk he gave at my college he roundly denounced climate science as the left's attempt to intentionally destabilize the economy)
What Mr. Moore doesn't tell you is that International stock markets grew more in 2017 than the US stock market. Apparently, under Trump, America does not come first.
4
What you probably should be asking is: If the economy were tanking, Obama would get the blame -- but if it's doing well, why isn't he getting the credit?
4
When I was young, I often defied reality by waiting to get gas until my tank was almost empty. In my most unreasonable moments I would find myself hitting the gas to get to the station as fast as possible, though I knew I was using more gas and making it even less likely I would succeed.
Hitting the gas is rarely a good idea in the long term, as the con-in-chief has proved with each of his bankruptcies. His entire life is a lesson in the troubles shortsightedness bring.
Leaders have enormous pressure to created shortsighted solutions. Those wise and brave enough to stand up to such pressure and take the longer view are the ones who make a real difference. When Trump Tower is literally under water, T will be raising rents on the upper floors.
2
What is the purpose of this article? Mr. Moore is a long-time conservative who works for the Heritage Foundation. He has been known to publish incorrect facts in newspapers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Moore_(writer) He was an economic advisor to Trump's campaign. Of course he will say the economic gains are Trump's achievements!
This is generally a purposeless, conservative opinion written by an avowed Trump supporter.
I don't claim to understand the economy, but I am quite sure that one president in office for one year cannot claim all the growth without considering any other factors.
3
After dire predictions of economic catastrophe if Trump was elected (I voted against him, BTW), the fact that the economy is doing as well or better than it was under the previous Administration must come as an unpleasant surprise to The Opposition. So many of the reader posts below validate my opinion that I'll just sit here and enjoy a brief period of gloating.
Any individual or group who opposes an Administration knee-jerk reflexively will quickly lose credibility with the hundreds of millions of Americans who hear the news but don't post reader comments on the NYT. The Republicans did this to themselves in the recent past, and the Democrats seem to be adopting the same strategy now. We are a nation quickly going from a two-party system to a zero-party system.
Moore posits that Trump spurred the economy by removing regulations. What that did was raise the stock market, as billionaires waited for their tax breaks. Removing environmental regulations means the oil and gas companies are busier, looking to drill and frack. So yes, it seems that it has raked up the numbers.
However, at the same time Trump has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific economic pact, letting China to grab markets on several continents from the US. And practically no companies -- even Apple, whose remarks Trump twisted - saying any of the new tax breaks were going to new jobs. He is hurting the solar power industry now and wants to withdraw from NAFTA. Recent and Davos speeches indicate that Europe as well as China is starting to turn its back on US trade, realizing it will be impossible with Trump.
Meanwhile, thousands of employees across the country are being laid off, and a big influence on the economic index is consumer confidence, which will fade over time as awareness of this grows, and as Trump's supporters who are scraping by realize he hasn't made their lives any better.
And Trump's businesses themselves are losing money, as his brand turns negative. Even his vaunted DC hotel, one-third less occupied than comparable hotels in the area, only stays open because foreign diplomats are happy to pay 40 percent more than average (NY Times, 1/28).
1
From my perspective, Donald Trump is doing everything in his power to make the rich richer. So, the upsurge in the Dow Jones is just rational exuberance on the part of Wall Street because they see him removing the protections on consumers, the environment and so on. Is that a rosy picture to you? It kind of makes me sick to my stomach. Trump and the GOP have succeeded together in undercutting the possibility that taxes can help spread the wealth more evenly. As our government fails through underfunding , we will have no way to counterbalance the already obscene amount of corporate power.
For me, a rosy economy would mean no people regularly sleeping in tents, in cars, on the sidewalk, in shelters, or in substandard housing. It would mean health care for everyone. It would mean no food insecurity. It would mean taking care of the elderly and the very young. It would mean fully funded education from nursery school to PhD. So, honestly, to me the economy looks pretty bad right now and I have every reason to believe it will just get worse as this nightmare presidency continues.
I've searched everywhere and I can't find Stephen Moore's article where he gives Obama credit for 8 years of prosperity and positive growth. I'm just waiting for that before I give trump credit for anything.
1
Mr. Moore states: "But by late 1982, with Reagan’s phased-in tax cuts finally kicking in, the economy exploded and quarterly growth rates hit 8 percent, job creation soared and Reagan won re-election in a 49-state landslide". At least part of this narrative is complete rubbish. It ignores the fact that by late 1982 it was aggregate unemployment that had exploded - above 10% Oct. - Dec. The monthly rate stayed above 10% well into 1983 and did not fall below 8% until early 1984. These data can be verified at www.bls.gov Monthly, national, unemployment rates can be obtained from 1948 foward via the website. Clearly, these BLS data are strongly at odds with Moore's narrative. Perhaps this is not surprising as true believers of trickle down economics ignore the fact that empirical support is lacking for this tired, unproven dogma.
2
It took Bush 7 years to sink the economy. Don the con will probably do it in 2 or 3. Then it will be Trump's economy.
1
If the economy were tanking, Trump would take the blame due to the departure from the economy he inherited.
It's difficult to give Trump much credit for an economy that is basically just continuing on from the Obama-era trajectory.
It's a false equivalency.
Timing is one factor. To go from growth to growth is nice, but nothing to write home about. And it is really young into his administration.
Another factor depends on what you mean by the economy. The growing, dangerous, and immoral inequality of wealth is getting worse. The wealthy are stealing the future's of the poor, elderly, and infirm (not to mention the military) with their raiding of government treasury with their tax cuts. It is the workers, many of whom are recent immigrants or their children and grandchildren who are producing a lot of this wealth -- not Trump.
1
I'm pretty sure Mr. Moore would be blaming Obama if the economy were doing poorly right now.
1
If the economy were tanking, DT would simply blame it on the failed policies of Barack Obama and those Democratic members of Congress who supported Hillary and just want to make him look bad.
He will bear no personal blame for any setback or failure.
1
The sad state of our divisive politics is that we cannot come to grips with any shared credit anymore and the POTUS has decided there is no middle ground so of course it's his economy now. I love listening to all the wall street pundits loving the creeping up to 3 and maybe 4% GDP in 2017 and 2018. What folks constantly forget is the 9 year recovery resulted in positive growth in EVERY quarter but two (-1.5 and -.9) the larger of which was due solely to the GOP trying to shock the system by not raising the debt ceiling. And this is after an asset bubble that saw the second largest GDP fall in our nation's history. You'd be hard pressed to find another 9 year period in history with that consistency and not even considering the shock prior. There was a need to cut some taxes (corporate tax cuts were in play throughout Obama's second term with no GOP senators willing to drive it home) and some regulation but we have an administration that thinks every thing done before it was wrong. When the day of reckoning comes, who will they blame for the recklessness and greed that got them there - surely not them.
The only thing that has really changed about the economy is the way the GOP talks about it. Lower rates of job creation than under Obama, yet the GOP crows from sunrise to sundown.
Baloney. Trump and republicans would, if the economy was not booming, blame it entirely on the “mess he inherited “ from Obama
2
Thanks, President Trump. The increase in my (small) portfolio has allowed me to replace my old Honda.
2
"But with the economy red-hot, he [trump] gets little credit".
And what happens so often with "red-hot" markets?
A whole lot of us get burned, that's what.
2
Didnt Trump just add 2 trillion to the debt?
Yeah, I give him credit for that.
And showing up to super-heat the economic recovery and give himself and his Maralago swamp friends extra cash while wages still stagnate.
3
Depends what you measure
Based on the stock market amd low unemployment rates, the economy looks MAGA great
Once you factor in 10 years of unabated quantative easing by central banks and the residue of distorted unemployment rates from the Reagan Administration, the context shifts to reconcile with the widespread social discord and wealth inequality
DJT is neither naive nor stupid and is more than willing to “Barnum &Bailey” himself to any willing audience
People will pay to see the bearded lady
1
Gasoline prices are rising and expected to rise more . Should he get the credit for that. I live in NY and my taxes will go up not down does he get the credit for that. His supreme court will soon deal a death blow to public unions where I get my pension from can Icredit him when my benefits are reduced or gone? I live with increased anxiety about our democracy being destroyed and fascism taking over. I'll give him credit for all those wonderful things.
5
"For one, the economy was decelerating at the end of the Obama presidency, with the annual growth rate falling to an anemic 1.6 percent in 2016, and many economists warned of a recession."
Um, no, except for maybe partisan hack economists, no one was looking for a recession.
And I wish you guys would stop giving Reagan so much credit - Oil fell by 50%, and interest rates fell by 500-700bps in the first 2 years of his presidency !! Daffy Duck could have engineered 8% GDP with that happening !!
1
This is written by the Heritage Foundation. Presume anything stated in this piece promoting and lauding Trump is a lie unless proven otherwise.
4
Wake me up when this will manifest positively in any way for folks middle class and below...
1
If the economy was tanking, Trump would be blaming Obama and anyone else close enough to point the finger at...including economic advisors like you, Stephen Moore.
1
Pointing feverishly at the healthy economy, as democracy crumbles around you and every single thing you ever fought for is dismantled piecemeal before your eyes is sort of like standing on the scaffold, rope around your neck, saying, "Say what you like, but there's really quite a wonderful view up here!"
1
Common sense: Things take longer to build than to tear down.
Common sense is something the right lost after their cocaine party in the eighties (which ended in a stock market crash, Wall Street corruption and a recession... sound familiar?). The economy is strong because a strong foundation, eight years in the making, holds it up... and when disaster strikes in the next few years the right will be howling "Obama did this!"
I'm sorry, remind my why anyone assigns credibility to Stephen Moore and his love affair with discredited economic theory?
1
No. Trump should not get the credit for the robust economy he inherited from Obama.
1
Weak. Replacing Yellin one of his policies that turned things around??? She's still Chairman.
Cannot believe such utter hogwash in the Times!
Mr. Moore, Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, then signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Please read up on these two horrendous acts which took 8 years to crash the economy.
In another 8 years, after the Treasury feels the full effect of Trump tax policy, and society suffers the full effects of deregulation (environmental, consumer, you-name-it), will you still hail "Trump's economy" or will it be the next president's fault?
1
During a good economy, a fiscal conservative would pay down debt rather than adding to it. An infusion of cash into the economy when the economy is booming by borrowing is akin to borrowing from a pawn shop, a payday loan center or buying furniture with weekly payments. The economy will enjoy "the new couch" provided by Republicans trying to buy votes and defer the cost to the country. Repubs would not provide stimulus when it was needed, totally ignoring the benefits of stimulus shown thoughout the 1930's and '40's.
A good economy, created by Dems despite Repubs' wishes to harm the country, economy, auto industry, etc. to improve their electoral chances during Obama's tenure is now turned on its head so they can buy votes with borrowed money.
Politicians frame the issue of the tax cut asking how much will the middle class get as opposed to the wealthy. Stupid. Many taxpayers will get something. Most will not recoup the cost of $1.5 trillion divided by 120 million taxpayers of $12,500 per taxpayer, or $25,000 in new obligation, accruing interest, for joint filers.
This is the time to pay down the debt.
Does this purportedly esteemed economist author recall that our president, as candidate, alleged that the unemployment rate was actually some huge number and that the government numbers were fabricated? Any recollection at all? Yet the same type of analysis, in the same country, in an economy that has not changed drastically in the past year, is now credible and shows how wonderful Trump's policies are! Why any respectable newspaper would publish this piece now is a puzzle. Anyway, I have seen Stephen Moore in various TV venues and his sycophancy is something to behold.
Stephen, you obviously have not learned the NYT philosophy yet. If it is good news, praise Obama for his wise policy; if it is bad news, blame Trump’s attempts to destroy democracy. Got that? Good news, Obama’s; bad news, Trump.
Let’s try a couple of examples.
Good news: oil production in the US is up and the US is poised. to become the world’s largest producer. This good news is due to Obama’s attempts to restrict fracking and his burdensome regulatory environment. Doesn’t make sense to you? Let’s try a bad news one then.
Bad news: Syria’s Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people, triggering a US response. This is clearly Trump’s fault. If he had issued a stern red line warning to Assad and then followed up with a tongue lashing, this would not have happened. Oops! Maybe not the best example either.
If, like Trump and Congress, I ignored environmental degradation and continued refusing to pay for ecosystem services that we're gradually destroying, I too could create a very good economy. For now.
If, like Trump and Congress, I ignored our deteriorating physical infrastructure - roads, bridges, schools, railroads, etc. - that makes us productive, and instead focused on a silly wall between us and Mexico, one that will do as much to keep out immigrants as the French Maginot Line did to keep out the Nazis, I too could create a very good economy. For now.
If, llke Trump and Congress, I ignored our deteriorating human capital infrastructure - the schools that educate us, the basic research institutions that are the foundation on which commercial applications are created and on which patents are filed, I too could create a very good economy. For now.
if we all act like farmers who devour their seed corn, leaving no with which to plant next year's crop, we can
Unfortunately, this very good economy now won't last, because it's built on shaky foundations. And the longer it takes for the collapse to happen, the worse it will be.
If, like Trump and Congress, I gave away boodles to the rich, bribed the less well off with a temporary tax cut, and agreed to raise our existing annual deficit, now in the $400 billion range, by another $100 billion, all adding to our growing $20 trillion national debt (roughly $60,000 per person), I too could create a very good economy. For now.
3
What nonsense. If this is the best intellectual firepower that the Heritage Foundation can boast it would do better to advise the president of Venezuela.
1
Two words: “lag time.” But Moore knows what he’s doing, I’m sure. This isn’t about actual economic analysis—of any kind.
1
Let us credit one man with one achievement. Stephen Moore would be that man. His achievement? Consistency in premature creditation for the state of the economy to a sitting President.
Here he asks us to grant Trump credit for all that went well in 2017 (and politely ignore anything that isn't going swimmingly, wage growth being small for one). This less barely more than a year since DJT took office.
But, have no fear, Stephen is fair! For he many times decried the state of the economy throughout Obama's first year in office, and beyond, before President Obama's policies went fully into force. He even wrote a book about this, nine months into Obama's first term. He called it "How Barack Obama is Bankrupting the U.S. Economy" the blurb to which finished with these words, "Stephen Moore explains this rotten story of Washington arrogance and malfeasance, and reveals exactly why Obamanomics failed."
I'll grant that Moore accepts now that "The job market improved impressively under Barack Obama’s presidency after the Great Recession ..." - yet this reveals another universal constant. Rational perception demands remove from the immediate.
1
Persons who actually take action to bolster or grow the economy should get credit for having done so. If there's anybody who does NOT deserve credit for the economy, it's Trump, who has done absolutely nothing except provide Wall Street with confidence that in blissful ignorance he will sign any oligarch-friendly nonsense the GOP-led Congress can pass in between repeatedly shooting itself in the foot. Golf is not governance.
1
The stock market part was easy as 1 2 3. 1-corporate 2-tax 3-cut. For most Americans the economy will be better when the income and wealth gap narrows. Given current policy I'm not holding my breath.
4
There are many factors why the economy is doing well. Not the least of it is that momentum began in Obama's presidency and his policies saw steady gains. The fact that nothing Trump has done has interfered with that wave doesn't mean he deserves all the credit.
The economy is doing well because investors see a stock market where money can be made. De-regulations and rollback protections for consumers pushed by a Trump also contribute.
As for wages, companies are not planning to use the tax cuts to increase them. They are giving out one time bonuses and increasing the stock values. They are not creating jobs. They are laying people off while giving out bonuses.
This is indeed Trump's economy. We shall see what growth occurs.
We shall see what foreign investors think when tariffs are imposed.
We are reaching a saturation point and then what?
4
the answer to your question is "no." if a wagon is engineered and built by a driver and headed down a long hill and a new driver hops on board, should the new driver get the credit for the momentum, speed and progress of the wagon? no
however, if the new driver crashes the wagon, it is the new driver's responsibility.
12
If I understand this correctly, people who are adamant that government only gets in the way of the economy are now taking credit for economic growth. As a former investment analyst, I believe I have a pretty good idea about leads and lags in economic/financial decisions. As an award-winning analyst, I also feel I have a pretty good idea about what constitutes appropriate stock valuations. Frankly, none of the current investment environment makes any sense whatsoever. Marking up the shares of the private sector in the face of increasing fiscal problems for the public sector is voodoo economics on steroids. At some point in the not too distant future, tax revenue will have to be increased; it can only come from the corporations or the public - the latter of which actually represents the purchasers of the goods and services that the corporations provide. That algebra doesn't work.
And let's not forget that the current market darlings that are dragging equities to unjustified levels (Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc.) are nothing more than the current manifestation of the Nifty 50 that generated the same phenomenon 50 years ago, or the Cisco/Dell/Intel/Applied Materials/etc. that led to the Tech Bubble. If investors in these securities ever bothered to see what options and buybacks did to their equity over time, they'd apply some significant haircuts to what are some unwarranted price/earnings ratios.
23
The economies of China, India, Japan,..and Europe have also taken off over the past year. So what really is the cause since Trump had nothing to do with these countries economies (but he may think he does)? There is so much inertia involving the economy, that any change in economic policy and tax law takes a year or more to show an effect on growth, salaries, employment,...
8
I believe the economy is doing well because industry can see the Trump administration will gleefully roll back any restrictions placed by previous administrations on issues like the environment and corporate oversight. Sure, if business allows to operate unfettered the economy will likely improve to some extent, at least from the psychological, forecasting perspective. But this strikes me as a short-sighted trend that will only further diminish the economic power of the less-than-wealthy, as well as further damage public lands, and air and water quality for the long term.
11
Hard to see dark clouds? Not for people in Houston, Puerto Rico, and a few other places. The Obama administration tried to codify the real effects of economic activity in a way that factors long-term environmental impacts, including loss of human life; if we thought of the policies of this presidency through that lens we might see a few more clouds gathering. So sure, Trump gets the credit for some short term economic growth. I think it’s unconscionable that a serious economist could make this point without the caveat that policies to undermine environmental regulation and the moderating of climate change will lead to enormous human and financial costs in the future—that, in fact, we are now seeing the effects of a long history of similarly shortsighted decisions. Just because we are not very good at measuring these costs doesn’t mean they aren’t real. Economists who are trying to do some good in the world are working to figure out how to model change and policy in a way that integrates what we now see daily happening to our planet. People like Moore, who still think economic success can be summed up in two or three numbers are standing in the way of that critical progress and we will all suffer for it.
15
The absence of equity in the Trump world view, an absence that is gleefully shared by plutocrats of every description who are flocking like hobgoblins all over the body politic of America, is not mentioned in this piece. The absence of equity and the resulting widening of the abyss between the very wealthy who are the sole beneficiaries of Trump's policies, and everyone else, is blithely ignored. The revolution will surely come, when the hoi polloi tire of the incessant screwing they are receiving at the hands of the wealthy. The United States was indeed founded to enable the pursuit of wealth--pseudonymous with happiness--but now we are splitting too far apart, riven by the politics of selfishness and greed. An explosion is sure to follow in this country that cherishes its Second Amendment and that appeals to violence as a solution to its intractable problems.
12
A positive review from trump's former economic advisor is guaranteed to be full of misleading innuendo, deceitful argument, and outright lies. It's a disgusting testament to the normalization of fraud.
The rich have gotten richer under trump. The dow jones scares the hell out of me, personally. I feel impending doom.
Unemployment is still a result of Obama's sound judgement but it will change.
8
Absolutely right. The tax heist starts going into effect, and the bonuses from the end of last year were at the higher rates, making them bigger deductions. Trend lines continue, but actual actions by Trump to actually change things are few. Including those to harm the ACA that have pushed costs up, which is a great accomplishment how? The best thing that has happened is the economy has not tanked - yet.
Whoa, Lex. What about the 98% of fawning columns and op-eds by Democrats including former members of the Obama and Clinton Administrations, touting the successes of their bosses? And here's some news - the rich also got richer under Obama.
A few points: First, all of the trend lines in this first year of Trump’s presidency are straight line extensions of the economy he inherited from Obama. It’s fair to say he hasn’t screwed it up. And the trends will likely continue for a while, since the global economy that was a dead weight on America during the Obama years is now improving almost everywhere.
Second, the stock market, which has accelerated, is a reflection of the confidence that businesses do see in a compliant Trump and the GOP. Whether what’s good for American business (not just GM) is necessarily good for America remains to be seen. It will certainly be good for some part of America, the millionaire and billionaire part. Whether it will help the rest of America depends in part of what you think about the role of government, since tax receipts from businesses and their owners will likely decline, along with government programs that help the less wealthy.
Third, Trump really has had a major impact on regulations, and the absence of those will definitely hurt the rest of America. His climate change position is stupid even by his low standards. But dismantling other regulations, like consumer safeguards, environmental standards, access to the Internet, access to healthcare, workplace safety and equality, etc will hurt the bulk of Americans.
Last, you can’t consider the Trump economy while ignoring his attacks on democracy and his pandering to the religious right. How’s your confidence about those trends?
7
I am glad Stephen Moore has finally appreciated the excellent economy President Obama left President Trump and that President Trump has not screwed it up yet. Its been growing about about the current rate since summer of 2009. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/
Also, the Times editorial pages should be ashamed to let a purveyor of alternate facts such as Stephen Moore grace its precious editorial pages or that they let him write without fact checking. Another reason I think hard every day about whether this should be the day I cancel my subscription.
5
Cannot argue that financial things are looking up. Some of same are due to trends (started a while back) playing out, and some are due to new policies being enacted by a Congress that is no longer totally opposed to the Executive branch. The Walmart statistics look great until you realize that the wage increases are being more than balanced by the closing of dozens of Sam's Club stores and the loss of thousands of jobs, For every yin there is a yang. Any chance in hell of finding out how much of the new national gains are being enjoyed by White House and friends?
2
The author (and Trump) wish to inflict the "ante hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy on the country.
Besides ignoring much of what is known about the economy, e.g. unemployment is a lagging indicator. Not to mention that the same unemployment figures for which Trump is claiming credit were bogus, false, fake, and manipulated prior to his election.
And of course his policies have also hyped the economies of the Euro zone, Nafta countries, Pacific Rim and China. Ummm ... come again?
A year in, yes, I will give him credit going forward. At this point, he has succeeded in not screwing things up.
2
Trump inherited an improving economy. If I understand our economic pundits correctly, all he can take credit for is not screwing it up in his first year in office. But that may change if he continues to impose tariffs, threaten trade wars and reduce immigration.
3
Yes Trump should get a little credit for not screwing up the economy after Obama set the table for President Sleaze. Obama turned the thing around after the Great Recession. He deserves a spot on Mt. Rushmore. Trump? What a repulsive, disgusting person he has been through his life and continues to be. You would think candidates for office would be required to not have been charged with crimes or even investigated for crimes as a qualification to run. Trump makes me ill and angry.
3
Stephen, you never cease to amaze me. You forget to mention that Reagan's great economy ended with a debt that was tripled - from 800 billion to 3 trillion, which caused a recession that George HW Bush inherited. Bush ended up doing the right thing - he raised taxes, and then lost the election partially because Republicans won't vote for someone who raises taxes, even if the economy is about to implode. You also don't mention that the stock market under Obama in his first year rose more percentage wise than under Trump in his first year. Were you bullish on Obama back then? Also, Obama inherited a 10% unemployment rate, but by the end of his 8 years, it was 4.9%. Does he get credit for all that, or is that all because of Trump? Also, in truth, no president can take credit for an economy for at least 2-3 years, and Trump has passed no legislation in his first year other than tax cuts, which haven't even taken effect yet. So how does he get credit for anything? This is obviously still the same steady upward trend that started back in 2009 after the crash. Let's see where we are in 2 years, when the debt starts kicking in and the middle class begins to realize how it's been screwed once again, when Healthcare costs skyrocket, and Educational levels are the lowest ever, etc., etc. Yes, you are amazing...
5
"If the economy had nose-dived in 2017, there’s no doubt the media would have pounced on Trump policies as disgraceful failures. But with the economy red-hot, he gets little credit. That’s a double standard." Central to the delusions of the well-to-do are notions of fairness and standards, notions that justify in their minds unprecedented greed and theft by borrowing. I will not be listening to the false PotUS expounding how very lucky we are he was elected to run our economy. He was elected by frightened, misguided people to run the government. The economy is successful only because the government is run by people who insist that the government cannot be useful. Meanhile, true patriots grab what they can and damn everybody else.
5
How can any reasonable fair witness not see that Trump's life and history are an exercise in winner-take-all and to hell with all the rest. Moore fails to even breathe a sigh for the income inequality that continues to force the heads of so many under water.
5
The economy is booming (so far) in SPITE of Trump, not because of him. It IS his, now - his to screw up. It’s only a matter of time. Plus, the long term impact of his policy changes will have a negative effect on the quality of life of future generations; economic measurements won’t capture the intangible losses to individuals from reduced environmental protections and social policies that pull the safety nets out from under the people (mostly women and children) who can least afford to lose them.
3
Watching wall streeters move their $ out of stocks and into bonds as the market is way over sold. Trump and the Treasury secretary have asked for and are getting a lower $ .... imported goods will cost more and suck up those $1K bonuses before you know it. Farmers are going to get killed by Trump's hissy fit to get out of NAFTA. The tariffs placed on solar are going to kick around 23K people out of work and increase the costs for companies building the new renewables "grid". Inflationary pressures will put pressure on the FED to raise rates faster than they planned when the began to sell off their "assets". What could go wrong for Trump ?
6
NYT trolling its readers again. Not appreciated.
4
So far, Donald Trump hasn't screwed the economy up yet. Economic policy affects economic outcomes well after the policies are implemented. A lot of the outcomes we are seeing now are partially the fruits of Obama policy. Obama inherited the fruits of Bush policy (not so good). Economic policy is only one factor in economic outcomes. Many of the factors are out of the control the Fed and the US government.
Many of Trump's policies are awful and based on bad economic theory that hasn't worked in the past. Tariffs on solar--sounds like he is picking winners and losers, something Republicans are supposed to abhor. He wants coal to win even though it is an economic loser. This isn't really economics, it his politics. He hates the idea of climate change so much, he not only wants to forbid the government from addressing it, he wants to interfere in the marketplace to prevent the private sector from addressing climate change.
Tax cuts may have some short term benefits, but many long-term costs. He is dismantling health care with no viable replacement. I'm not ready to give him any good grades on economic policy.
3
The tax cut is the equivalent of putting an ounce of cocaine in front of an addict. To him/her it sure looks good on the table, but there is hell to pay once its gone. Trump should get no more credit than the extremely late drug dealer who arrives to "save the day".
3
Steve Moore gives the usual whine about his boy not getting credit. On Donnie John, give him his due, things worked out, so far. Will the continued push towards full employment or beyond full employment lead to higher wages? Good question. The bonuses are pretty much a sop being thrown to labor by corporations who got everything they wanted with the tax reform giveaway. Were I to receive one I would still cash the check, but ask, where is my raise? And remember, they are one shot deals. Much of the unemployment decline has to do with the employment rate(those looking for a job), which is near a low. The filing for unemployment claims data has been bumping against a low for 3 years now. Donnie John inherited that figure. And on the wealth created, recall prior to the panic of 07-09 the S&P reached an all time high of somewhere around 1500. It would see under 700. The wealth destroyed was mostly those 401k/IRA holders Steve Moore mentions. The big boys got bailed out. The little guy got screwed. Steve Moore shows himself to be the magical thinker the "free market" think tanks are famous for, again..
4
We give presidents (and governments in general) too much credit and too much blame for the state of the economy. Governments can screw things up (e.g. Zimbabwe and Venezuela) but otherwise can't really control the economy. Economists are like generals - always fighting the last war and never being prepared for what comes next.
The best that government can do is to set the conditions for economic growth - the rule of law, economic freedom, and honest government. We could do better on all three counts.
4
Trump continued the strong economy Obama gave him. OK, give him credit for on thing he didn't screw up.
Obama took over a terrible economy and made it great again.
3
You can't possibly be serious by allowing this opinion piece...this is how an ignoramus got elected president in the first place - giving a forum to people who have no idea what they are talking about - shame on you, New York Times...
4
Some readers feel the same about Susan Rice and her editorials.
2
The economy Trump will own will be the economy of an America trillions in debt, with everybody living at the poverty line except the .0001%. It won't settle in until a few years after the middle class tax cuts expire, but be patient.
2025: Poverty is the new middle class.
2
At what cost is the economy booming? Corporations have received enormous tax breaks, which will eat away at the federal treasury. Which will eat away at dollars for R&D, infrastructure and the social safety net. Economists surveyed on the tax cuts uniformly identified that it would not be revenue neutral. This will have a huge impact on the economy as debt servicing increases and we lack revenue for critical services.
3
Donald Trump has instituted some changes in economic policy.
These changes are counter to Obama's policies, and are counter to slow economic growth and stability.
Deregulation of financial institutions is what caused the deepest recession in modern history, and that is the trajectory of Trump's policies. He is also protectionist, which will shrink healthy economic growth.
2
One would do well to read Stephen Moore’s Wikipedia page before lending credence to anything he says. In 2014, the Kansas City Star ran one of his op-ed columns which was a response to a Paul Krugman column. Moore’s piece was so riddled with factual inaccuracies, the Star refused to publish any more of his garbage. Perhaps the NYT should follow their example.
3
The economy may be hanging in there for now, but at what cost?
We've handed over protections of a free internet, clean air and water, a healthier future environment, access to health care, quality education, as well as all semblance of a civil society with basic decency standards in exchange for... an economy that's fine.
3
Yes, my IRA is doing well, and I also suppose that many Germans were happy that Hitler made the trains run on time. Are we ready to trade our values, our democratic norms and our national dignity for a sack of gold?
3
Just the analysis one expects from a right wing Thunk? Tank - a front for the Kochs and other billionaires.
3
Trump calls the Times "fake news".
This article suggests he may be on to something ...
3
Wow. So because some people would ignorantly blame Trump if, say, the stock market drops or unemployment ticks up, we should ignorantly praise him for the opposite. How did Republicans become so enamored of ignorance.
2
Mr Moore wrote a book on how Bush 43’s policies would create an ownership economy and how his tax cuts and deregulation would result in economic Nirvana so I’m surprised he has the gall to write this tripe and that the Times would publish it.
1
Krugman's "Charlatans, Cranks, and Kansas" piece and Stephen Moore's distorted analysis of the failed Kansas State tax cut "experiment" resulted in the Kansas City Star not printing any more Moore without "thorough fact checking." This piece provides the thought that ideology often kills ideas and creates its own self perpetuating bias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-crank...
1
Why is the Times giving space to this hack? Certainly there are competent economists with integrity who could honestly write on this topic. Recall, he was banned from Kansas newspapers for lying about Brownback's tax policies.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/ar...
1
Comparing FDR's economic results (New Deal) in the U.S. vs Hitler's in Germany at the time, Dutch journalist Geert Mak - no fan of Hitler - wrote (in his brilliant 1999 book 'In Europe') that Hitler did a much superior job. So, what was there not to like about the fuehrer?
1
All we need now is Ayn Rand to come from dead and praise Trump's Economy!
2
If the economy were tanking, Trump shouldn't get the blame. Democrats seem to be on the losing end of this pattern of credit and blame. Obama got the blame for W's two wars + tax breaks + unregulated Wall St. greed, even though Obama was the one who pulled us back from the brink and set us on the steady course to recovery that we're now enjoying. It's Obama's recovery that Moore would like to credit to Trump. Sadly, by the time all Trump's damage is done and begins to manifest itself in an economic downturn, Democrats will retake the White House and get the blame. It sucks!
1
As long as he keeps blaming his failures on everyone else, especially HIllary or Obama, then no, he shouldn't get any credit. You own your failures and your accomplishments or you don't.
2
Shame on the NYT for putting this tripe on its front page. Sadly the powerful financial industry prefers unchecked capitalism over democracy. Obama spent his entire administration shoring-up the banking system at the expense of poor and average citizens. Who left him holding the bag? Good ol’ centrist Democrats (read republican-lite) and moderate Republicans (read GOP “greedy old people”). Every intelligent economist states matter of factory that the cycle post-recession puts us here and it has nothing to do with the inept moron the electoral college shoved down our throats.
Honestly I hope it gets so bad that people finally decide to change things permanently and recognize that the best things in our society are those that reflect a true social democracy where the government is actually the people and the people have equal representation.
We must stop seeing profit as never-ending. Resources are finite. Education, healthcare, jobs are important. Making the rich exorbitantly richer is just disgusting.
1
It's easy to 'grow' the economy with a $1.5 trillion loan to be paid by the lenders.
It's easy to grow it by allowing the irresponsible exploitation of public lands, the environment, the taxpayers (aka, the paper holders), and by discarding regulations that assign costs and responsibilities.
It's so so easy to grow the economy when justice, fairness, and the concept of a 'commonwealth' are ignored.... when you allow drilling, and fracking, and mining and dumping everywhere... when you ignore science... when 'quality of life' is measured only by the bottom line, or the DOW...
It's easy when you define those who matter as those who donate....
... Mr. Moore, you're a fool and a charlatan....
2
Mm, the "on his watch" school of analysis. OK, then Bush is responsible for 9/11.
1
Wow reading through the post and you can see indeed that the NY Times is a liberal hotbed. I may be one of the few conservatives who read Times articles anymore. And now we also know why the NY Times is dying.....
1
Let's take a moment here to recall the Times article that Trump rightfully designated the biggest fake news story.
After the election, the Times, like 99% of its readers, predicted a global economic catastrophe. The Times' story, written by Krugman, entitled "The Economic Fallout" stated: "[the] markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? ... If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never... Now comes the mother of all adverse effects... So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight... [O]n economics ... a terrible thing has just happened."
Of course now that the economic is booming, Times readers are making excuses. Takes a long time to change course... these were Obama's policies... Trump is actually causing irrational exuberance that will lead to a Great Depression... blah blah blah. Bottom line is the economy is doing right and all the Lib haters are wrong. I do give the Times credit for running this admission of an article.
2
Trump pocketed a billion through the tax scam. How much did you get?
Does someone other than Trump also get all of the credit for this?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/29/the-associated-press-get-started-small-b...
To borrow a phrase from Fearless Leader, 'fake news'! GDP growth for 2017 was around 2.6% - hardly whatcha call smokin'. Job growth was actually down a tad from 2016. The trade deficit was up dramatically - does anyone recall what a yuuuuuge deal The Great Orange One made of that figure during his campaign, or his promise to bring it down, and fast? No, of course not.
And considering the bad rap Barack Obama took during his presidency for restrictions on drilling and mining in sensitive areas, has anyone noticed that during his tenure America's production of oil and natural gas went on a tear, to the extent we cut the price of a barrel of oil down by more than half, drove the cost of production down to the point that remains profitable, and the U.S. has achieved freedom from OPEC's machinations we haven't known in decades?
And meanwhile, wind and solar have grown like topsy, so someday we can wean ourselves off the kickapoo joy juice from underground? Assuming, of course, El Grand Cheeto hasn't killed alternative energy off with counterproductive, job killing tariffs on solar panels and unwarranted subsidies for coal, of all idiotic things. What next, bring back buggy whips?
Yes, the stock market is on a tear, which is more about 'animal spirits' than current economic activity. Give corporations a big tax break, remove sensible constraints on speculation, consumer fraud and environmental plunder... sure, they're on a sugar high.
Give me a freaking break.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, eh, Mr. Moore. Even an introductory course in logical fallacies blows this tripe away.
50 million food insecure people. Wow, that ecoanemc scheme you got in America be so exceptional.
1
I fail to understand why the NYTImes is giving space for a serial liar like Stephen Moore. His damning record is well known. He has no credibility and the newspaper loses credibility by giving him space.
This comes in the wake of giving Mark Weisbrot, another serial liar who is incapable of looking back at his own record, a who op ed about Brazil last week. At least the Times is giving equal opportunities to dishonest columnists of the derp right and the derp left, but the damage to the credibility of all op eds in the paper is done. No, the defense that some of what they say may be true is not valid.
I really don't understand why the Times would provide valuable editorial space to someone who is a proven propagandistic liar like Stephen Moore. Printing liars is not "balance." Seriously, it tempts me to cancel my subscription -- he is that bad.
1
His stock market, his business climate, his ecponomy.
Lies, cheats, steals; blowhard, bully, bigot; sexual predator, serial adulterer, sadist, coward.
What's there for a CEO, an entrepreneur, even just a businessman not to love?
Perhaps the author could have saved everyone some time and just wrote "I'm a paid shill, and my only job is to pretend everything good is because of Republicans and everything bad is because of Democrats. Please don't believe anything I say inside this paradigm."
4
I would not believe much the author has say. When he is on TV, I change the channel. He is quite purely and simply an apparatchik, a hack, so politically motivated that he will twist any truth or fact into an ugly caricature fit to promote his "thesis". And no, I have not and would not read whatever he has written here.
2
WHAT AN ABSURD notion... Like the first thing he (or any newly elected president) did, after entering the Oval Office was go over and Pull-Start the Economy like it was a lawn mower. Please. We've been coasting along from Obama who basically turned a blind eye to what Corporate America was doing. All Trump's done is REV the lawnmower throttle some.
5
Time after time after time, the NYTimes Narrative Media Tribe contemplate to themselves, as they look in mirror each day, “Just because we cleverly disguise our advocacy as journalism, that doesn’t really make us Propagandists, does it?”
Blink as they might to miss, accuracy responds like slap across face from rancid fishtail: “Yes!”
This is ridiculous. Trump is depressing MY economy.
2
The economy is doing well (for a small slice of America)
Impeach this ridiculous baboon. Melania, please divorce him now. Salvage the rest of your life.
3
Another Trump fan club member writing an op piece for The NY Times. What else is new?
1
The markets could be up 500% and Trump would still be a mendacious, feckless, and despicable human.
4
Liberals are still boo-hooing over the election. Get a clue. Trump rocks.
2
But I am quite sure you are loving your raise to $15 per hour brought to you by liberals who dominate your life. You're welcome!
1
I'll rise to your bait.
Actually, no, I'm not 'boo-hooing' over the election. I'm planning for the next one.
I'm planning for a President who will not tell 'the forgotten men and women' that they have no been forgotten, and then give tax breaks to the richest. I'm planning for a President who does not say that he 'cherishes' women, and cheats with pornstars on his pregnant wife. I'm planning for a President that does not tweet like a child, the moreso to disguise that he does not have a clue how government actually works, much less how to write policy. I'm planning for a President who does not regard American neo-Nazis as 'good people.' I'm planning for a President who does not court the affections of dictators.
I take it that Trump 'rocks' for you, because the POTUS has created a climate in which his supporters can say whatever they want without a shred of evidence. Sorry, "M," I have a clue. And a moral compass that tells me that Trump does not 'rock,' but that he has several in his head.
2
Why does the NY Times give a platform to Mr. Moore? Aren't there any real economists available who can present a "Conservative" perspective? Honestly?
2
Hang on! Booming?? In general it is chugging along at the same pace as under Obama. Little donnie does mention that.
1
"...It’s Trump’s Economy Now...
Does this mean he can...
> Put his name up on top of the Eccles (aka DC Fed) Building, in forty-foot capital letters...And plate all of the metal toilet and plumbing fixtures in - as Goldmember would say - Gooollllld...
> Fire Yellen as Fed Chairman, before her term ends next Friday - simply to show that he can...And to give the liberal MSM something to be alarmed about, during what's generally a slow news week...
As far as...
"...Ultimately, the most important statistical indicator for Mr. Trump will be wages for middle-income workers...
Wrong,,,
The most important statistical indicator for Mr. Trump will be actual non-make-work private-sector jobs for middle-income workers...
Stephen Moore is a yahoo 'economist' who flubbed often on CNN. He's a cheerleader for doofus for sure.
2
What does it take for a conservative charlatan to lose face?
Are there no voices on the right more reputable than Stephen Moore?
Why I won't read anything by Stephen Moore:
http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/stephen_moore_heritage_fou...
Stop it NYT. Just stop it.
1
It's still "mostly Obama's economy" said the New York Times on Jan 17.
The author pretty much discredits himself by saying that the economy has been helped by policies that haven't taken effect yet, such as policies on climate change, net neutrality, and health care, not to mention the replacement of Yellen. Assuming that he is not an idiot, he is deliberately misleading. Please stick to credible authorities who are willing to argue honestly.
1
sure steve,,, employees are just 'business costs' to your kind.
1
Poor, little, obsequious Stephen Moore, out there parroting what his benefactors want him to say, hoping that his mendacious propaganda on behalf of the 1% of this country will fool enough of us into looking the other way when the obvious disaster of a train wreck---and who caused it---is right in front of our noses.
This pathetic sycophant knows no shame.
2
I would never call myself an expert on American economics, but one didn't have to read far into this article to suspect that its author could not possibly be one of the usual commenters of the New York Times.
2
Mr. Moore is right.
2
How sad that a newspaper that publishes a Nobel Prize-winning economist published ... this.
"He'll get re-elected" Don't scare me man with ending your piece like a horror story
2
If you're one of the very, very rich, the economy has done well. If you're one of the rest of us, the story is much less rosy. My income taxes will go up over $3K per year because of the "incredible tax cut" that was passed. People on salary are not earning more, because the jobs are not coming home and because the excess money from the tax cuts goes to the owners, not the workers. And if yo drink Mr. Moore's patently biased Kool-Aid, you are in the dark.
Why does this patently false and clearly biased piece merit publication?
1
The question is why a reputable newspaper allow itself to be a platform for a recognized purveyor of truly fake economic tearless-
Its Trumps economy, ONLY ,if one doesnt understand,that despite Don the Cons blundering and potentially catastrophic "year of reign", he DID NOT DESTROY the Obama Administrations economic recovery efforts,for the most part............although like a bull in a china shop , Trump blindly, tried his best to do so !
2
Propaganda from the Koch-financed Heritage Foundation.
2
This author’s interrst results in a myopic understanding of the world.
Okay Mr Moore, what if things do not pan out as your always optimistic and rosy predictions do. Can we ask you then to retire to your cave by the beach in CA and never bother us with your silly prognostications?
If I'd known this guy's sycophantic motivations before reading this piece, I wouldn't have wasted my time with it.
As Mr Moore is the founder of the uniquely partisan Club for Growth I think we can simply slip this opinion piece into the cheerleader column.
The cretin in the white house deserves no credit either way...the economy is "booming" because he and the whites who insisted that they would sit on the sidelines while a black man was president are now working hard to destroy our reputation and our future for short term profits.
1
Why bother publishing propaganda for for Fox News? This is bunk.
You NYT people are tormented by Trump's positive results.
Are you really this stupid, or think we are??? Thanks to President Obama, the Great Recession was kept from becoming an actual Depression. Trump has been in office an entire year. Let's ask this question again in another year. Or two, if HE is still the Presidential Apprentice. Seriously.
1
Dear New York Times,
Why can't you get a real economist that might also be a conservative to comment on the economy with an honest take? Instead, you give space to a charlatan and grifter from a "think tank" that has been wrong so often that it would be easy to note the instances he got something right. Your choice of using precious op/ed space for such pernicious junk is a very poor editorial choice.
So what if Trump finds Nazis are 'fine people' and is a prolific liar He keeps the trains running. What could possibly go wrong?
1
By the time he left office after the 2008 election, George W. Bush had destroyed the American economy, creating the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Beginning in early 2009, Barack Obama's administration began turning that desperate situation around, and he made steady progress throughout his two terms in office. Obama added 2 million jobs a year in each of his last 6 years in office, not to mention a record 75 consecutive months of job growth. And Obama did it without assaulting the environment, as Trump is hell-bent on doing. Stephen Moore is delusional at best and cynically dishonest at worst in crediting Donald Trump with any role in the economy over the last year; Obama turned the ship around and Trump just hopped aboard. It remains to be seen what Trump's mark will be on the American economy, but I see no reason to be hopeful given his first year in office.
To the Op-Ed Page Editors - Seriously, why do you give Stephen Moore, the most public face of the Club for Growth Trickle-down financial scam, your stage??!!
As soon as I read the opening paragraph of this article from Mr Moore I knew what the reaction of the enlightened Times readers was going to be.
The analogy I thought of immediately what was that Mr Moore was like a matador at a bull fight with the readers being the bull (pun intended.)
I couldn't wait to flip over to the comments and my expectations were fully met. They attacked the author repeatedly with the same old hate filled diatribe as he waved the cape in their face.
It's great entertainment but we all know how every bull fight turns out. I always feel sorry for the bull but in this case I feel nothing for people who refuse to accept the results of an election they lost because their party is completely out of touch with reality.
1
If I want to read standard right wing propaganda, I'll turn to Breitbart, not the NYT.
More intellectually lacking normalization pushed on us by the NYT. Obviously an opinion piece , but why THIS opinion piece? and where's the pushback with facts and context, even if separately? Where were the Heritage opinion pieces giving Obama even the soupçon of credit here when he was President? It wasn't there and now you choose to run a pice muddying the waters further, very wolf in sheep's clothing. The fact is the economic numbers for the past year are very similar to those the last couple of years of Obama's administration, but now and only JUST now will the Right even slightly acknowledge the gains made by Obama.... So why publish this, NY Times? When will you stop publishing vapid opinion pieces like this and post the real news- the news of the Resistance and the wave that's coming- because you're complicit- increasingly- in a very unethical 'whataboutism' and 'put aside your FFELINGS for Trump and admit things are good' that will continue leading this Nation to ruin.
You would think Trump was the antichrist from the wailing and moaning coming from Democrats.
I must admit that, though I'm a lifetime liberal Democrat, I struggle with being critical of Trump when it comes to the increased pace of financial improvement that is occurring almost across the board in the USA. However, I refuse to give him any of the credit as well. The American financial system is based on regulated capitalism. The weaker the regulation, the stronger the capitalism. That in itself does not automatically make "things rosy" forevermore. I honestly do not know how long it will take, but the reduction in regulation will only increase growth until the cost of the reduction is recognized by the public. More people will get ill and die, and more people will live in greater and greater fear of accidents and illnesses. Eventually, this will lead more people to want change to increased regulations and decreased growth to slow things down and maintain humanity. That's my opinion, but I honestly don't know if it is absolutely correct. We're all going to see soon, like within the next few years what the total effect of Trumpanomics will those Americans NOT in the upper levels of income.
The improvement of the economy under Trump is at the same rate as it was under Obama's policies. i would assume that if that rate increased or decreased it would be because of Trump's actions. So, I don't give any credit to the Trump Administration. The best thing that can be said of Trump is that he hasn't hurt the steady growth of Obama's economy.
4
Trump deserves little credit because the slight acceleration in U.S. growth is merely following a greater, and unusually synchronized acceleration in global growth. At best, the U.S. is back to the level it reached in 2014, and at that time the U.S. was performing better relative to the rest of the World than is the case now. (e.g, Eurozone growth is much higher now, relative to U.S. growth than during Obama's second term). If Trump had done something special to help the U.S. economy, would we not be seeing a pick up that is greater than the global acceleration? If we are merely in line with the rest of the world (and that would be a generous assessment) then how does one figure that Trump has made any difference?
3
I remember just a year and a half ago when the economy was on the same trajectory Trump and Republicans were saying it was a disaster. Now Mr. Moore sets up a hypothetical that does not exist...what if the economy were tanking...
As soon as we start to see the actuarial effects of the tax cuts for the wealthy, then we will see the Trump economy emerge. Right now we're still enjoying the Obama post-stimulus economy.
We are seeing signs however how the Trump economy will emerge. We have started to see companies begin to do buybacks of stock thanks to the repatriation provision of the tax law. But that is not translating into jobs; just more cash for executives who are now paying a lower tax rate.
We've seen Walmart lay off 10,000 people which gives them a huge profit jolt. Now they can pay a lot lower tax on the profit, creating the justification to fire 10,000 Americans.
Just as with Bush's 2004 tax cuts we are going to see a lot of wealthy shareholders and executives take in big cash at the lower tax rate. Not only will fail to create create many jobs it's going to cost jobs because they can now double dip; profit from firings, and take in more cash because of the tax cut.
2
Figures this is from the Heritage institute,the place that claims that the US should mirror the rants of Ayn Rand, where the well off get most income and wealth and are grateful to the 'owners" for anything they get. While there are facts in this op ed, the market has exploded, the problem is why it has exploded, is it in fact a sign of dynamic growth, or a bubble economy like the original .com bubble. The dow was at 16k just before the 2008 crash for example. So the stock market is likely exploding anticipating the "Trump Economy", but the reality is you can't call it a Trump economy to this point, it is the obama economy with "trumpery" (my term for it) thrown on top of it.
In a year we will know more, we will see if the tax cuts (which only went into effect this month) actually equate to not only low unemployment, but where people are finding good paying jobs. Yeah, Walmart announced they were raising salaries, but then in effect to pay for it closed stores and laid people off, and other company's claims remain promises. By next year, we will see if there is income growth (and there are signs there won't be, thanks to corporate pac man), and we will also see if we see the well off's incomes exploding and their wealth and income taking more of the pie; more importantly, what is going to happen with budget deficits, what happens if the debt skyrockets as expected? In a year to a year and a half we will see what the Trump economy means, the clock has just started
6
Is Stephen Moore really an economist? The first rule of that discipline is that moving an economy is like piloting a huge ocean liner. Trends are both slow to develop and slow to change. Trump is fortunate to have inherited an economy that was on the rise when he took office, an advantage that his predecessor did not have to say the least. While Obama took heat unfairly for the time it took to turn a near depression into a recession and finally to a growing economy, he did not get a chance to preside over it now that is reaching its stride. And his successor isn't about to give him any props for the easy glide that Obama left him. If Moore is no more intelligent than the person on the street who thinks that this is Trump's economy, why is he being given prominent op-ed space in this newspaper? Trump is the quintessential example of a man born on third base who thinks he hit a triple. Moore should no better if he is any kind of an economist.
7
I’m willing to give Trump credit starting now, but he was riding the economic boom coattails of Obama on the way in in 2017. Just look at an annual graph of the stock market from around 2005 to now. Bush tanked it with his policies, Obama had to save it into a slow climb, now Trump may be increasing the trajectory, but does it come without considering the lessons of the most recent recession? We shall see. There is no such thing as infinite progress in the way that capitalism defines progress. I am more fearful of a wildly booming unchecked economy than a reasonably-paced checked one.
7
You have no clue!! Do your research and look to see when the market took off after President Trump was elected.
Oh, I know, “S”. I know. I also know the stock market is different from the economy as a whole.
There is a delay between election and policies showing actual effects.
I'm willing to say that from now on is Trump's economy. Let's see if he can keep from destroying the continuing recovery from the last Republican administration's Great Recession.
In the 1960s the top tax rate was 70% and the corporate rate was 50%, and average GDP growth over 4%. With taxes on the rich and corporations slashed we are down to 2% average growth. I fully expect the new tax cuts (which once the temporary cuts expire are actually a tax increases for workers because of the change to how inflation is distinguished) will further depress growth, as government spending on the US is turned into investment spending in other countries, helped by the cut of the taxes on outsourcing, or bet on the global derivatives market that creates nothing.
Go ahead and give Trump credit for the economy. He will get blamed for the disasters that he creates.
4
Should we credit President Trump’s first year in office for sunrise this morning as well? As I understand from years of reading on the subject from economists of all political persuasions, cyclical patterns in business are more germane to current overall economic conditions than who occupies the White House. As many will recall, the economic upswing in President Clinton’s first year was widely lauded as a consequence of his leadership by those on the Left and attributed to late term policy action in President G. H. W. Bush’s administration by those on the Right. Your observation that the market and economic winds can (and do) shift by the hour is more on point than the balance of your argument.
4
Wages getting bumped up at Walmart? Much of their ballyhooed par increase was mandated by minimum wage legislation in states where they do business. And all of that wage growth was offset by the massive store closings at Sam’s Club where entire payrolls were wiped out with one day’s notice.
6
...and everyone who signed up for Trump University was going to get a world-class education and become incredibly successful.
If history is any teacher the returning offshore corporate money will go to stock buybacks and CEO salaries.
Hard working, low and middle wage workers ("Takers") who rely on social security in retirement may very well find that safety net not so safe when Republicans, faced with the $1trillion they just added to the deficit, have to call out their budget surgeons to amputate those gangrenous limbs of "entitlement programs" the takers stand on.
Time will tell. Until then enjoy the party.
7
Good try Dan but you can already see that the tax cuts did NOT returning offshore corporate money will go to stock buybacks and CEO salaries. Pay attention to reality!!! How do you explain all the bonus that are being paid and wage increases????? Don't make up what you want try telling the truth and you will have some credibility in your posts!!!
The economy may be great now, and kudos to Trump for that, since that's what he wants. But if he continues to follow his own trends on "regulations energy, climate change...and health care" we will be paying, bigly, for many, many generations to come. If that's what it takes to improve the economy in the short term, it is just not worth it.
7
If it's still doing great at the end of his term(s), then he can share some of the credit.
Do keep in mind, that the stock market is not equal to the economy. The stock market may be doing better than it was under Obama, but the economy has been doing pretty much the same slow but steady improvement it started to do under the end of Obama's tenure.
10
The economy grew at 1.5% in 2016 under Obama and grew 2.6% under Trump. Given that the stock market performance is a "forward looking" indicator of corporate profits, expect GDP growth to be 3-4% for 2018. Oh, and yes, the stock market is a direct measure of economic health.
Donald Trump is a first rate self-promoter and confidence man, so I suppose he must be given credit for convincing working Americans that he is acting in their self interest rather than running the gov't for the benefit of the wealthy. The unstated leimotif of Republican economic policy for some time has been that caring for the vulnerable and infirm is a drag on the economy, and does not enhance the bottom line and have finally lucked out in having a President who managed to convince enough working class Americans that they won't be the ones to suffer when funding dries up for programs that help the most vulnerable. Republicans like to say the states should be left alone to help their citizens and Republican governors refused to expand Medicaid in states that are suffering opoid addiction, yet Trump had the nerve to blame the ACA for the dropping life expectancy of Americans with only a high school education. The successful Republicans states are the ones whose economy is based on abundant natural resources. The most conservative have an abysmal record of investing in human capital, and come in last in measures of education, health, income.
The biggest gains for the middle class came from huge investments in education, science, health and the saftey net that occurred leading up to and in the aftermath of WWII. The internet really WAS started with gov't spending and foresight.
The failure of today's Republicans will manifest after most have left office. Who will get blamed?
8
You might want to check your facts regarding measures of education, health, income. For starters, California is a blue state.
Albert,
Local education in California was hobbled by the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 - a cause championed by anti-tax advocates. So perhaps California is in fact a perfect example of how anti-tax policies hurt public school education.
You should take note, that when it comes to college and graduate level graduation rates, California ranks considerably higher.
Hopefully their party
The US economy is not a simple thing. An improving economy, especially one that recovers from a sharp downturn can (and has!) taken years to recover. It is quite clear that our economy is reaping the benefits of long term Fed (and global) monetary policy. Economic shocks can't suddenly make the economy grow from 2% to 4%, but they can cause the economy to slow down from 2-3% to zero or minus growth. No way around those FACTS.
2
A President can only do so much to impact the economy.
However, it is true that growth was somewhat stalling during the end of the Obama Presidency despite the massive deficits of that Administration.
Clearly, the economy has accelerated since Trump's election. Shockingly strongly really. I guess in some sense he should get credit for that. However, much of this growth is based on the assumption that businesses are going to expand, hire, raise wages, etc. based on the tax cuts.
That is all possible but I'll withhold credit until that actually happens.
4
The Bush administration left office with deficits of $1.2 trillion per year. He steadily cut the yearly deficit until he left office with deficits half of that, as promised.
Most of the total debt is made up of the Iraq war (which was not paid for with Iraqi oil because that money went to global oil corporations), the Bush tax cuts (which did not pay for themselves either), and the Great Recession, which slashed tax receipts as the economy allowed, long before Obama took office.
Blaming Obama for the debt is a great big lie.
Hi Dan,
In the real world, deficits increased under Bush and decreased under Obama.
They are also projected to increase under Trump.
That's what's going on in the real world.
First, the optimistic economic climate is good everywhere in the world, not only in the US, and more jobs are created because baby boomers are retiring for real.
Second, an economy is doing well doesn't mean that there are less homeless people, that poverty is eradicated, that inequality doesn't exist, and that people have better health.
Finally, you can't give credit on the economy to someone after one year on the job. He can bring some optimism but it has marginal effect on many structural aspect of the economy.
9
I'm skeptical of giving any president too much credit for the state of the economy whether good or bad, especially in the short run. There are a million factors (health of foreign economies, natural fluctuations in the business cycle, technological innovation, unique circumstances, etc) that determine the trajectory of the economy and policy is only one. And from what I understand, most economists agree!
9
Has the Heritage Foundation ever heard of the word, 'BUBBLE'? Using the DOW as an example, it rose from about 6,500 in March of 2009 shortly after Obama took office, to almost 20,000 when 45 entered the White House. It is now around 26,000. What's propping it up?
My guess is that the rich and giant multinational corporations like their tax cuts and the rampant deregulation from this administration. Pouring money into the stock market and buying back their own company's stock has two advantages: it continues to create the illusion that the economy is booming, and it greatly enhances their stock options and portfolios.
But there is very little trickle-down. The real economy, unlike the stock market, is driven by consumers. If very little of the money is reaching them, there is no boom. There has been very little change in the unemployment rate in the past year.
The 401(k) accounts and pensions are paper gains. They can disappear overnight, much as they did in 2008. And if there is anyone out there who believes that there is a bonanza of new manufacturing and mining jobs in this country, you might be interested in a bridge I happen to have for sale.
14
Anyone can bludgeon government regulations and that's Trump's only talent. George W. Bush in his first term turned off banking regulations that lead to the credit bubble and that resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression here at home, and even more tragic results for global economies. Trump has us heading for a bubble of colossal scale. Without thought or planning he is repealing and rescinding regulations without replacing them. Opening those flood gates, the results will be inevitable. When the bubbles burst that Trump has started by destroying regulations in climate, manufacturing, solar energy, healthcare, education, justice, and on and on, we will know the cost of this Trump presidency. To get an idea of the costs we will have to pay for the celebration Trump is now salivating for, look back to George W. and the 2008 great recession.
1
This isn't Trump's economy, it's a prolongation of Obama's unless you believe the U.S. economy is purely the stock market and the massive rise since Trump's election is a reflection of the economy's newfound health.
Remember the boom under Reagan, followed by the massive bust? Well, Trump can choose to take credit for this economy as long as he takes the blame for the inevitable supply-side bust.
6
The one time $1000 bonuses are absolute jokes. Taxes of 22% are taken out, along with social security, medicare, medicaid and state taxes. End result is $600.
The increase of hourly wages are because of individual states raising the minimum wage.
6
".. along with social security, medicare, medicaid and state taxes." And if the GOP manages to fulfill its goal of destroying social security, medicare, and medicaid, again paid into by us, and taken away in the same fell swipe.
Doesn't matter what the economy is doing. Trump is still awful.
20
All presidents are wink and nod allowed to take credit where it may not be due. But this president is a chronic liar, and a confidence man, whose behavior is killing us as a decent society. No winks and nods for this guy; he needs to be called out for what he is at every turn.
9
People who would blame a two year president for an economic slump are just as ignorant as those who would give that same president credit for an economic boom. Obama was president for eight years, yet I don't recall any right wingers, or even conservative commentators giving him credit for the healthy economy, although they were all too eager to blame him for a deficit he inherited and actually reduced. It is all ignorant partisan bluster, nothing more.
10
Obama had five quarters of GDP growth above 3% including one quarter of 5% growth.
And worst job growth since 2010:
2011 2.09 million
2012 2.14 million
2013 2.30 million
2014 2.09 million
2015 2.71 million
2016 2.24 million
2017 2.06 million
Figures don't lie. Liars figure.
6
We lost 5 million jobs and $70 trillion in wealth in the two years leading up to Obama's presidency.
The Stimulus, the Auto Bailout, the ACA and Dodd Frank, took an economic catastrophe and turned it into:
Record shattering 80+ months of positive job growth.
Tripled the value of the stock market.
Highest middle class wage increases in decades
Significant decrease in personal bankruptcy
Annual deficits drop from $1.4 trillion to $500 billion
No Conservative president/Republican Congress has ever created numbers this good. Especially following the closest thing we've had to a Great Depression since the Great Depression.
Figures don't lie.
1
Steve Moore, wanna comment on this?
1
@Javafutter
PS - plus 20 million got health care.
And W Bush took a balanced budget, zero deficit, from Clinton and gave Obama a whopping $1.4 Trillion deficit.
Obama got that down by almost 2/3 to $550 Billion.
What nonsense, typical but nonsense. President Obama and Chair Yellen thankfully set the stage for the current economy, while I worry each day about what President Trump and Congressional Republicans may do to undermine what we have. How much more will be given to the richest? Will social-economic program by undermined? Will Social Security and Medicare be protected?
10
I noticed that some of the comments below do not support Stephen Moore's point that Trump should be given more credit for the upturn in the economy. The problem is that while some diehard democrats will continue to credit Obama for the economy this November, for the rest of us, Obama will be long gone and only Trump will be standing there at center stage taking bows and shoring up his control of both houses of Congress. Given the democrats resistance to Trump's economic policies, a good economy is now a fundemental strategic disadvantage for the democrats durring the mid-term elections. This was made worse by the continuing resolution debacle, which the democrats have taken the blame for.
The republicans have the ball and they are running hard downfield. Trump approval number have jumped to 45% from 35% despite his rude comments, the women's march, his tweets and the ongoing Russian collusion investigation. To borrow James Carveille's most famous campaign slogan; "It all about the economy, stupid."
6
Not sure about the linkage between the economy and getting elected....didn't work out so well for Hillary.
Wait till the Tax Scam begins to take effect. Then we will be in the Trump economy.
Dan,
Hillary never mentioned the economy and the GDP in 2016 was only 1.6% (very slow economic growth). She was dismissive of the plight of coal miner in a key swing state and lost union workers who were traditionally democratic voters in other key swing states.
No. This was another edition of “simple answers to simple questions”, brought to you by the Affirming the Consequent department of logic.
6
Everyone could have a job if we were willing to work for a dollar an hour, no benefits, and no bathroom breaks.
Moore's utopia.
9
Wow, it took Obama fours years to own the economy and now it only takes Trump one year. This is called leading from the front.
4
Shouldn't he get the credit? No. Absolutely not.
Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for being elected. The only thing Trump has done besides be elected that will for certain impact the economy is the tax bill, and that did not impact 2017.
Other than that, lies, denials, and racism.
#Thankstrump
4
It doesn't matter what any of us say. Presidents are credited for the economies they leave, not the ones they inherit.
That was true EVERY previous president, and it will be true for Trump,too. (Provided he even completes his first term.)
5
The Axis powers have not attacked us . Iran - Contra is solved. We have recovered from that nasty stock market fall of 1929. North Korea is safely behind the 45th dividing line. The Kaiser and Czar have been deposed. President Trump is the Best !!!
3