*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[CoccoBill]

What are those successes?

[wufwugy]

What are those successes?

My top three:

(1) He overhauled policy on North Korea and peace is more promising now than ever.
(2) He overhauled policy on ISIS and they've been eradicated.
(3) The economy is markedly better under his administration.

[CoccoBill]

My top three:

(1) He overhauled policy on North Korea and peace is more promising now than ever.

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that the US agreed to stop military exercises with South Korea in exchange for a vague nuclear disarmament deal with no specifics. I'm not quite sure how peace in a meaningful sense is any closer. NK remains a hostile dictatorship with aims to develop nuclear weapons.

(2) He overhauled policy on ISIS and they've been eradicated.

Eradicated?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/21/p...rge/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/u...raq-syria.html

(3) The economy is markedly better under his administration.

Than when? I'm assuming under Obama, who had to deal with the 2008 crisis. I think the whole world has been doing much better the past few years. Which exact policies do you think have most contributed to the US economy? For reference, here's some data. To me it seems like the upwards trend has been going on at the same pace at least since the 90s, and apart from the 2008 dip, it has continued through Obama's latter years in office. There is no change after Trump took office. Or were you thinking of a different metric?

[wufwugy]

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that the US agreed to stop military exercises with South Korea in exchange for a vague nuclear disarmament deal with no specifics. I'm not quite sure how peace in a meaningful sense is any closer. NK remains a hostile dictatorship with aims to develop nuclear weapons.

That is correct. If we see NK restart their previous norms of nuclear and icbm testing and if we see negotiations with SK, Japan, and US move backwards over a long period of time, then things will be back to where they were before Trump.

Eradicated?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/21/p...rge/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/u...raq-syria.html

As the CNN article says, the caliphate is gone.

Than when? I'm assuming under Obama, who had to deal with the 2008 crisis. I think the whole world has been doing much better the past few years. Which exact policies do you think have most contributed to the US economy? For reference, here's some data. To me it seems like the upwards trend has been going on at the same pace at least since the 90s, and apart from the 2008 dip, it has continued through Obama's latter years in office. There is no change after Trump took office. Or were you thinking of a different metric?

Effects of policy can be seen over very short terms (theoretically they are often immediate). To be completely fair I compare from after the 2012 election to now.

The economy should always feel the same day to day, week to week, year to year -- all regardless of the real strength of the economy. This is an essential description of central banks' role. This sameness characterizes mostly both 2nd term Obama and 1st term Trump time periods, with probably Trump being slightly better but not that noticeably.

The economy feels about the same now as it did before Trump, as it should. The following nominal GDP graph shows what I'm talking about:



You may ask: if things feel the same doesn't that mean they are the same? The answer is only over the short term. Over the long term, it matters what about the feeling is real and what is inflation. Here I've broken down the nominal economy into its two components: inflation and real growth. As you can see, it matters where they are, but overall they're supposed to be managed such that they about the same.



But that's not the whole story. Notice how under Obama's 2nd term the federal funds rate (which drives the real interest rate) is subdued under Obama yet begins regular and frequent increases under Trump. This shows that the real economy is significantly stronger than the real GDP metric suggests.

Economists have two main ways of understanding what the behavior of the interest rate means, yet even though they are quite different they both suggest Obama's economy was less good than Trump's.

What's not in debate among economists and what is taught at every level of an economics education is decreasing the interest rate has an expansive impact on growth, and an increasing interest rate has a contracting impact on growth. As you can see this means that because the interest rate under Trump is increasing significantly more than it did under Obama, that it is probable that Trump's growth would be higher (by a lot) if he had Obama's interest rates.

Does that make sense? I haven't talked econ in a long ass time. Thanks for the prompt! :thumbsup

[CoccoBill]

That is correct. If we see NK restart their previous norms of nuclear and icbm testing and if we see negotiations with SK, Japan, and US move backwards over a long period of time, then things will be back to where they were before Trump.

Like I already said at the time, the bar for him was fairly low and just that his meetings with Kim didn't immediately start a nuclear showdown was a positive. Sure, things may have stabilized a bit, but not something I would necessarily rate as a great success.

As the CNN article says, the caliphate is gone.

So success in the sense that Gulf War I and II were successes? I hope round 4 isn't right around the corner.

Effects of policy can be seen over very short terms (theoretically they are often immediate). To be completely fair I compare from after the 2012 election to now.

The economy should always feel the same day to day, week to week, year to year -- all regardless of the real strength of the economy. This is an essential description of central banks' role. This sameness characterizes mostly both 2nd term Obama and 1st term Trump time periods, with probably Trump being slightly better but not that noticeably.

The economy feels about the same now as it did before Trump, as it should. The following nominal GDP graph shows what I'm talking about:



You may ask: if things feel the same doesn't that mean they are the same? The answer is only over the short term. Over the long term, it matters what about the feeling is real and what is inflation. Here I've broken down the nominal economy into its two components: inflation and real growth. As you can see, it matters where they are, but overall they're supposed to be managed such that they about the same.



But that's not the whole story. Notice how under Obama's 2nd term the federal funds rate (which drives the real interest rate) is subdued under Obama yet begins regular and frequent increases under Trump. This shows that the real economy is significantly stronger than the real GDP metric suggests.

Economists have two main ways of understanding what the behavior of the interest rate means, yet even though they are quite different they both suggest Obama's economy was less good than Trump's.

What's not in debate among economists and what is taught at every level of an economics education is decreasing the interest rate has an expansive impact on growth, and an increasing interest rate has a contracting impact on growth. As you can see this means that because the interest rate under Trump is increasing significantly more than it did under Obama, that it is probable that Trump's growth would be higher (by a lot) if he had Obama's interest rates.

Does that make sense? I haven't talked econ in a long ass time. Thanks for the prompt! :thumbsup

Thanks for the explanation. GDP and inflation I think I sort of understand, and effective federal funds rate seems to be indirectly set by the FED, by buying and selling government bonds. So that was dropped to (near) zero after the 2008 crisis, and has been rising since 2015, when I guess the FED had deemed the US is out of the gutter? I guess it's notable that was during Obama's time.

Here's some other indicators I found on wikipedia of Obama's last 2 years and Trumps first 2:



So there has been improvements in unemployment rates, wages and poverty rates, but at the same time increases in budget deficit and the trade deficit. From my economic layman's perspective it's hard to see this as an unequivocal success, and even if it can be labeled as that, how can we know for sure this is all because of Trump's policies, and not just part of the global economy's upward cycle?

[wufwugy]

Like I already said at the time, the bar for him was fairly low and just that his meetings with Kim didn't immediately start a nuclear showdown was a positive. Sure, things may have stabilized a bit, but not something I would necessarily rate as a great success.

We need more to see if the success is lasting.

So success in the sense that Gulf War I and II were successes? I hope round 4 isn't right around the corner.

Perhaps. The caliphate went from being large and growing quickly to finished. The amount of suffering the Trump admin put to an end is wonderful.

Thanks for the explanation.

Sure thing, man.

GDP and inflation I think I sort of understand, and effective federal funds rate seems to be indirectly set by the FED, by buying and selling government bonds. So that was dropped to (near) zero after the 2008 crisis, and has been rising since 2015, when I guess the FED had deemed the US is out of the gutter? I guess it's notable that was during Obama's time.

Here's some other indicators I found on wikipedia of Obama's last 2 years and Trumps first 2:



So there has been improvements in unemployment rates, wages and poverty rates, but at the same time increases in budget deficit and the trade deficit. From my economic layman's perspective it's hard to see this as an unequivocal success, and even if it can be labeled as that, how can we know for sure this is all because of Trump's policies, and not just part of the global economy's upward cycle?

You are correct and your points are the kinds that needed to be noted. There are theories by economists I respect (some I was trained by) that would be more in line with the idea that Trump had little or nothing to do with it. My own theory is basically that too.

The depressed federal funds rate is a strong sign that there was something wrong during Obama's economy. I think that was Fed policy (not Obama policy directly but POTUS can always affects Fed policy). And near the end of Obama's term, Fed policy got almost exactly where it needed to be. Voila, signs of strengthening in the interest rate start up.

I do not think Trump has created a better economy so much as the economy during Trump is better. I think Trump's effects on the economy are hard to measure, and I would never present them as fact.

[oskar]

As the CNN article says, the caliphate is gone.

Which means nothing. There are an estimated 10,000 isis fighters in US/Kurdish controlled prison camps in the area that Turkey is currently invading shortly after Trump promised Erdogan not to intervene. We don't know what's going to happen with them. They could be summary executed, which given that these are suspects who have been held without a trial, would be catastrophic. They could be released. Trump said he doesn't care if they're released because "they'll go to europe."

These 10,000 are nothing compared to a new generation that grew up with the US backing an illegal invasion, stabbing the Kurds in the back weeks after they agreed to and acted on a disarmament deal. This will inevitably breed more terrorists. This is a genocide that the US has an active part in. They are executing Kurds on the street, they are deliberately going after Kurdish politicians, and they are targeting women as children, and not just military bases.

[oskar]

Which means nothing. There are an estimated 10,000 isis fighters in US/Kurdish controlled prison camps...

https://forum.pictures/isis-militant...urkish-forces/

It's ok guys! They're heading straight to Europe!

[wufwugy]

Which means nothing. There are an estimated 10,000 isis fighters in US/Kurdish controlled prison camps in the area that Turkey is currently invading shortly after Trump promised Erdogan not to intervene. We don't know what's going to happen with them. They could be summary executed, which given that these are suspects who have been held without a trial, would be catastrophic. They could be released. Trump said he doesn't care if they're released because "they'll go to europe."

These 10,000 are nothing compared to a new generation that grew up with the US backing an illegal invasion, stabbing the Kurds in the back weeks after they agreed to and acted on a disarmament deal. This will inevitably breed more terrorists. This is a genocide that the US has an active part in. They are executing Kurds on the street, they are deliberately going after Kurdish politicians, and they are targeting women as children, and not just military bases.

Sounds terrible.