• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is 3% Growth in the U.S. Sustainable? Is 4% Achievable?

Is 3% growth sustainable? Is 4% growth achievable? What possibilities would that create?...

My first thought was "It's only been two quarters" but I see that has been posted.
As you know the Fed target is 2% inflation. I agree with this target, and I'll claim it directly influences the growth achievable. As growth occurs we get inflation, and the Feds will put on the brakes.
My premise: If your target is 2% inflation, your going to get 2% growth.
 
Fair enough. But DJT has so far beaten the odds. I guess you don't think that can continue.

Please...Obama had 8 quarters of 3% growth but Trump has beaten odds? You are too much and no it will not continue. Trump will throw a monkey wrench in the works as soon as he can get ANYTHING done. Remember how he remarked that the 2008 recession was a great opportunity for him?

[URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-2007-i-m-excited-housing-market-crash-n578761"

]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-2007-i-m-excited-housing-market-crash-n578761[/URL]
Donald Trump Misleads on Obama Era GDP Growth
 
Last edited:
My first thought was "It's only been two quarters" but I see that has been posted.
As you know the Fed target is 2% inflation. I agree with this target, and I'll claim it directly influences the growth achievable. As growth occurs we get inflation, and the Feds will put on the brakes.
My premise: If your target is 2% inflation, your going to get 2% growth.

We have 3% growth now.
 
Please...Obama had 8 quarters of 3% growth but Trump has beaten odds? You are too much and no it will not continue. Trump will throw a monkey wrench in the works as soon as he can get ANYTHING done. Remember how he remarked that the 2008 recession was a great opportunity for him?

[URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-2007-i-m-excited-housing-market-crash-n578761"

]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-2007-i-m-excited-housing-market-crash-n578761[/URL]
Donald Trump Misleads on Obama Era GDP Growth

Per the Boston Globe, BHO's recovery was the weakest ever. Please see the link in #24.
 
Bank of Canada's Poloz: 'We Know How Inflation Works' -- 2nd Update
also printed in the WSJ

Growing worries in economic circles about the disconnect between growth and inflation in the developed world have been "greatly exaggerated," Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said Tuesday.

In a number of advanced economies, inflation has run short of expectations despite a solid pickup in growth, leading some policy makers and economists to worry about the ability of central banks to manage inflation and inflation expectations.

But Mr. Poloz's speech at a luncheon in Montreal dismissed concerns that the link between economic growth and inflation has been altered.
...
"The bottom line is that the fundamental drivers of inflation, along with some special factors we can identify, can explain the recent behavior of inflation reasonably well," Mr. Poloz said.
...
He told reporters at the press conference he believes inflation expectations remain well-anchored at 2%. Under the Bank of Canada's inflation-targeting regime, which Mr. Poloz helped design in the late 1980s, the central bank aims to set rates to achieve and maintain the midpoint of a 1% to 3% inflation range.
...
 
And the Feds is talking about raising interest rates.

The Fed is still stuck on the globalist/Obama economy and they don't have the foggiest notion why the economy can be growing without much inflation.
 
This THREAD is about the recovery and the economy. Not the FBI. They have little to do with economic growth.

I was responding to someone in the thread... he claimed Obama should be given props for the economic recovery.... and I made several points why it was nothing to be proud about.... that's it.
 
Per the Boston Globe, BHO's recovery was the weakest ever. Please see the link in #24.

Actually the Great Depression took longer to recover from and Obama's recovery was also much faster than the Europeans could manage. Global financial meltdowns like Bush's are bitches to come out of. So Obama's results may be best described as the worst EXCEPT FOR every other Western nation.

If so, that might be because many Americans are so accustomed to having a powerful economy; they have been dismayed by a rebound that hasn't been stronger.

But the OECD says that compared with our chief competitors, the United States is leading the pack — by miles. From the first quarter of 2008 until the same period this year, U.S. gross domestic product expanded by 10.85 percent. That compares with growth of just 0.64 percent in the Euro area and 0.06 percent in Japan.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/17/482328208/u-s-economic-recovery-looks-good-compared-with-sluggish-europe-asia
 
Last edited:
Actually the Great Depression took longer to recover from and Obama's recovery was also much faster than the Europeans could manage. Global financial meltdowns like Bush's are bitches to come out of. So Obama's results may be best described as the worst EXCEPT FOR every other Western nation.



https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...looks-good-compared-with-sluggish-europe-asia

Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII - Oct. 5, 2016

money.cnn.com/2016/10/05/news/economy/us-recovery-slowest-since.../index.html


Oct 5, 2016 - Donald Trump is fond of saying Americans are living through the worst recovery in modern times. He blames President Obama for the sluggish ...


161004164148-us-slow-recovery-chart-780x439.jpg


The Obama recovery has been the weakest ever. It should have been ...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...obama-recovery...weakest.../story.html


Jan 6, 2016 - The economy under Barack Obama isn't exactly filling voters with ... the spectrum have acknowledged how threadbare this recovery has been.

". . . Six million more Americans live in poverty today than when Obama was elected. Median household income (in real dollars) was no higher at the end of 2015 than at the end of 2007. The labor force participation rate — the share of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one — has sunk to 62.5 percent, a level not seen since the Carter administration. Since the recession ended, the economy has grown at an annual rate of just 2.2 percent. That is way below average for post-recession recoveries. Indeed, this has been the weakest recovery in modern times. . . ."

 
Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII - Oct. 5, 2016

money.cnn.com/2016/10/05/news/economy/us-recovery-slowest-since.../index.html


Oct 5, 2016 - Donald Trump is fond of saying Americans are living through the worst recovery in modern times. He blames President Obama for the sluggish ...


161004164148-us-slow-recovery-chart-780x439.jpg


The Obama recovery has been the weakest ever. It should have been ...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...obama-recovery...weakest.../story.html


Jan 6, 2016 - The economy under Barack Obama isn't exactly filling voters with ... the spectrum have acknowledged how threadbare this recovery has been.

". . . Six million more Americans live in poverty today than when Obama was elected. Median household income (in real dollars) was no higher at the end of 2015 than at the end of 2007. The labor force participation rate — the share of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one — has sunk to 62.5 percent, a level not seen since the Carter administration. Since the recession ended, the economy has grown at an annual rate of just 2.2 percent. That is way below average for post-recession recoveries. Indeed, this has been the weakest recovery in modern times. . . ."


Thanks for the reminder of how badly Bush killed the world economy. Thankfully we had a President who recovered faster from it than any other nation. That is the only measure that counts isn't it and look at the difference that Trump enjoys. Being handed the strongest economy in the West Vs. Obama being handed the worst economy since WWII.
 
Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII - Oct. 5, 2016

money.cnn.com/2016/10/05/news/economy/us-recovery-slowest-since.../index.html


Oct 5, 2016 - Donald Trump is fond of saying Americans are living through the worst recovery in modern times. He blames President Obama for the sluggish ...


161004164148-us-slow-recovery-chart-780x439.jpg


The Obama recovery has been the weakest ever. It should have been ...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...obama-recovery...weakest.../story.html


Jan 6, 2016 - The economy under Barack Obama isn't exactly filling voters with ... the spectrum have acknowledged how threadbare this recovery has been.

". . . Six million more Americans live in poverty today than when Obama was elected. Median household income (in real dollars) was no higher at the end of 2015 than at the end of 2007. The labor force participation rate — the share of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one — has sunk to 62.5 percent, a level not seen since the Carter administration. Since the recession ended, the economy has grown at an annual rate of just 2.2 percent. That is way below average for post-recession recoveries. Indeed, this has been the weakest recovery in modern times. . . ."


Recoveries from recessions are going to be increasingly slow in the future. One of the biggest reasons is globalization. As economies come back, corporations are going to be increasingly hiring overseas first. The unemployment and the economy in general will rise more slowly. This will go on until the rest of the world is more developed economically and wages and costs of living are more even across the globe. And that won't be at least for another century, if ever.
 
Thanks for the reminder of how badly Bush killed the world economy. Thankfully we had a President who recovered faster from it than any other nation. That is the only measure that counts isn't it and look at the difference that Trump enjoys. Being handed the strongest economy in the West Vs. Obama being handed the worst economy since WWII.

Looks to me like BHO's performance was poorer than GWB's. 2.7% vs 2.0%
 
Recoveries from recessions are going to be increasingly slow in the future. One of the biggest reasons is globalization. As economies come back, corporations are going to be increasingly hiring overseas first. The unemployment and the economy in general will rise more slowly. This will go on until the rest of the world is more developed economically and wages and costs of living are more even across the globe. And that won't be at least for another century, if ever.

The Boston Globe (from the link above) disagrees. I do not share your pessimistic outlook.

". . . In America, the historical pattern has always been that the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery that follows. After a severe recession like the one Obama inherited, the economy should have come roaring back faster than usual, and quickly regained what had been lost. This isn’t after-the-fact wisdom: It is what the administration itself predicted at the time. Far from anticipating the limping slog of the last seven years, the White House confidently forecast an economic recovery that would feature robust GDP growth of 4 percent or more. It never came close. . . ."
 
Looks to me like BHO's performance was poorer than GWB's. 2.7% vs 2.0%

Who got handed a worse economy? GW Bush or Obama? A President can only build on what they inherit.
 
Who got handed a worse economy? GW Bush or Obama? A President can only build on what they inherit.

BHO's opportunity was so much the greater. Per the Boston Globe:

". . . In America, the historical pattern has always been that the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery that follows. After a severe recession like the one Obama inherited, the economy should have come roaring back faster than usual, and quickly regained what had been lost. This isn’t after-the-fact wisdom: It is what the administration itself predicted at the time. Far from anticipating the limping slog of the last seven years, the White House confidently forecast an economic recovery that would feature robust GDP growth of 4 percent or more. It never came close. . . ."

Regardless, this thread is about the outlook going forward, not what happened in previous administrations.
 
BHO's opportunity was so much the greater. Per the Boston Globe:

". . . In America, the historical pattern has always been that the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery that follows. After a severe recession like the one Obama inherited, the economy should have come roaring back faster than usual, and quickly regained what had been lost. This isn’t after-the-fact wisdom: It is what the administration itself predicted at the time. Far from anticipating the limping slog of the last seven years, the White House confidently forecast an economic recovery that would feature robust GDP growth of 4 percent or more. It never came close. . . ."

Regardless, this thread is about the outlook going forward, not what happened in previous administrations.

Yes and that outlook is not good. Worldwide growth has slowed since 2001 and there is no indication of it changing anytime soon. My guess is that U.S. growth is all downhill from here. Trump has destroyed confidence in the U.S. and that will soon result in slowing growth.

This slow growth is not some new phenomenon, but rather the way it has been for 15 years and counting. In the United States, per-person gross domestic product rose by an average of 2.2 percent a year from 1947 through 2000 — but starting in 2001 has averaged only 0.9 percent. The economies of Western Europe and Japan have done worse than that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/upshot/were-in-a-low-growth-world-how-did-we-get-here.html
 
Is 3% growth sustainable? Is 4% growth achievable? What possibilities would that create?

The Left Is Baffled Over Trump's Economic Revival
Stephen Moore, Investor's Biz Daily


". . . The U.S. economic revival of 3 percent growth has already defied the predictions of almost every Donald Trump critic. I vividly remember debating Hillary Clinton's economic gurus during the campaign: They accused Trump and advisers such as myself of "lying" when we said that pro-growth policies would speed up economic growth to 3 to 4 percent. . . .

"One reason that economist Larry Kudlow and I and others assured Donald Trump that 3 to 4 percent growth was achievable was that Trump could capitalize on the underperformance of the Obama years. Under Obama, business investment fell almost two-thirds below the long-term trend line -- thanks to higher taxes on investment. Now, partly in anticipation of the tax cut, business spending keeps climbing. . . ."


There is no inherent virtue in obtaining 3 or 4% GDP growth. Making the richer richer does nothing for the overall quality of living of a nation. 2% or 12% don't matter if the money is going to continue to be wasted on the wrong things and both our political parties will continue to waste it on the wrong things.
 
Yes and that outlook is not good. Worldwide growth has slowed since 2001 and there is no indication of it changing anytime soon. My guess is that U.S. growth is all downhill from here. Trump has destroyed confidence in the U.S. and that will soon result in slowing growth.



https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/upshot/were-in-a-low-growth-world-how-did-we-get-here.html

And yet:

[h=3]U.S. economic growth hits 3% rate in second quarter - MarketWatch[/h]www.marketwatch.com › Economy & Politics › Economic Report
Aug 30, 2017 - WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. economic rebound in the second quarter was stronger than initially reported, as a lift to consumer ...
 
There is no inherent virtue in obtaining 3 or 4% GDP growth. Making the richer richer does nothing for the overall quality of living of a nation. 2% or 12% don't matter if the money is going to continue to be wasted on the wrong things and both our political parties will continue to waste it on the wrong things.

Higher growth is the difference between expanded opportunities and limited prospects.
 
Higher growth is the difference between expanded opportunities and limited prospects.

Higher growth just means more pollution. It doesn't mean expanded opportunities by necessity. Even Simon Kuznet, who invented GNP/GDP, said that the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred by GDP.
 
I apologize if I'm misunderstanding the point of this thread, but are we really comparing quarterly growth under Trump with annual growth under Obama? That seems a little dishonest. We could just pull out some stellar quarters during Obama's run if we want to do that. It looks good that the second and third quarters are better than they have been in a few years, but it isn't rocketing around anywhere. Shouldn't we see what Trump's annual looks like if we want to throw rocks at each other?
 
Is 3% growth sustainable? Is 4% growth achievable? What possibilities would that create?

The Left Is Baffled Over Trump's Economic Revival
Stephen Moore, Investor's Biz Daily


". . . The U.S. economic revival of 3 percent growth has already defied the predictions of almost every Donald Trump critic. I vividly remember debating Hillary Clinton's economic gurus during the campaign: They accused Trump and advisers such as myself of "lying" when we said that pro-growth policies would speed up economic growth to 3 to 4 percent. . . .

"One reason that economist Larry Kudlow and I and others assured Donald Trump that 3 to 4 percent growth was achievable was that Trump could capitalize on the underperformance of the Obama years. Under Obama, business investment fell almost two-thirds below the long-term trend line -- thanks to higher taxes on investment. Now, partly in anticipation of the tax cut, business spending keeps climbing. . . ."

We will see.
So we believe the tax avoider and bankruptcy expert (apart from the C grabber which trumpettes don't seem to worry about)
The average 10 year growth for the last 60 years has been a little over 2%
Obama inherited a - 0.8, - 1.6, had a couple of 3% quarters. Averaged 1.9%?
Levinson on WJ and others say we will never have a sustained >3% again
The worlds changed folks
I'll try to find the actual data
I think 2017 has averaged < 3%, but we will see.
Bad news it's Obamas economy if a 2 % quarter mine if we have a 3% quarter
 
Back
Top Bottom