• 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!

11 Facts That Prove The 2017 US Economy Is In Far Worse Shape Than It Was In 2016

bluesmoke said:
We have advancements in workplace technology waiting in the wings. Implementation is being held back because the average worker can't keep up with the learning curves of repeatedly new technology implantation.
Click to expand...

Saw a bbc doc interviewing pa factory workers.
"We just hired 3 new people. Trumps doing what he said!!!!!"
 
DA60 said:
'There is much debate about where the U.S. economy is ultimately heading, but what everybody should be able to agree on is that economic conditions are significantly worse this year than they were last year. It is being projected that U.S. economic growth for the first quarter will be close to zero, thousands of retail stores are closing, factory output is falling, and restaurants and automakers have both fallen on very hard times. As economic activity has slowed down, commercial and consumer bankruptcies are both rising at rates that we have not seen since the last financial crisis. Everywhere you look there are echoes of 2008, and yet most people still seem to be in denial about what is happening. '

11 Facts That Prove The 2017 US Economy Is In Far Worse Shape Than It Was In 2016 | Zero Hedge


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yep, the Obama economy and legacy has come home to roost though we are seeing a few good trends based on nothing more than optimism that things will get better. Just not having the threat of more taxes and regulations hanging over their heads has provided hope.

We can only hope the more business friendly and forward thinking policies of the Trump administration will be able to turn it around. The actual results of changes in tax and regulation policies usually don't show up in any significant measureable form until some months later.
 
If this pattern continues, the next recession may be just around the corner. Harrison predicts the midcycle recession will hit in 2019, and the current property market will peak in 2026 with a severe financial crisis on its heels.


Economists Explain Why Our Economy Crashes Every 18 Years

RealEstateCyclePeaks_Infographic-580x478.jpg
 
DA60 said:
The 11 are:

'#1 It is being projected that there will be more than 8,000 retail store closings in the United States in 2017, and that will far surpass the former peak of 6,163 store closings that we witnessed in 2008.

#2 The number of retailers that have filed for bankruptcy so far in 2017 has already surpassed the total for the entire year of 2016.

#3 So far in 2017, an astounding 49 million square feet of retail space has closed down in the United States. At this pace, approximately 147 million square feet will be shut down by the end of the year, and that would absolutely shatter the all-time record of 115 million square feet that was shut down in 2001.

#4 The Atlanta Fed’s GDP Now model is projecting that U.S. economic growth for the first quarter of 2017 will come in at just 0.5 percent. If that pace continues for the rest of the year, it will be the worst year for U.S. economic growth since the last recession.

#5 Restaurants are experiencing their toughest stretch since the last recession, and in March things continued to get even worse…

Foot traffic at chain restaurants in March dropped 3.4% from a year ago. Menu prices couldn’t be increased enough to make up for it, and same-store sales fell 1.1%. The least bad region was the Western US, where sales inched up 1.2% year-over-year and traffic fell only 1.7%, according to TDn2K’s Restaurant Industry Snapshot. The worst was the NY-NJ Region, where sales plunged 4.6% and foot traffic 6.3%.

This comes after a dismal February, when foot traffic had dropped 5% year-over-year, and same-store sales 3.7%.
#6 In March, U.S. factory output declined at the fastest pace in more than two years.

#7 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not a single person is employed in nearly one out of every five U.S. families.

#8 U.S. government revenues just suffered their biggest drop since the last recession.

#9 Nearly all of the big automakers reported disappointing sales in March, and dealer inventories have now risen to the highest level that we have seen since the last recession.

#10 Used vehicle prices are absolutely crashing, and subprime auto loan losses have shot up to the highest level that we have seen since the last recession.

#11 At this point, most U.S. consumers are completely tapped out. According to CNN, almost six out of every ten Americans do not have enough money saved to even cover a $500 emergency expense.

11 Facts That Prove The 2017 US Economy Is In Far Worse Shape Than It Was In 2016 | Zero Hedge


Thoughts?



Once again, I have ZERO loyalty to any political party or movement.
Click to expand...

these graphs do not portend good things for storefronts in an internet economy
retail sf growth per capita usa.jpg
graph retail sf per person internationally.png
 
Surrealistik said:
It's not really a question of Trump; I'm not sold on the importance of the president with regards to the economy outside of truly sweeping and systemic legislation/spending such as say in the case of FDR. That said, I do think we'll continue to climb and improve upon the current numbers, intermittent pullbacks, market scares and bubbles notwithstanding; the real question is whether we can upkeep the same rate of growth.
Click to expand...


If one is going to name a name, it will always be that of the President, who is the one that takes the responsibility for the results of an administration and the whole government management of our economy and foreign affairs. You can think the way you want, but what I say is how it's done in this country and looked at in every other. It's the leader that takes the credit or the hit for the consequences for term in office. You can argue from that point on about how others affected the results, good or bad.
 
bluesmoke said:
If one is going to name a name, it will always be that of the President, who is the one that takes the responsibility for the results of an administration and the whole government management of our economy and foreign affairs. You can think the way you want, but what I say is how it's done in this country and looked at in every other. It's the leader that takes the credit or the hit for the consequences for term in office. You can argue from that point on about how others affected the results, good or bad.
Click to expand...

Sure, but in reality and practice the President has very little to do with economic trends most of the time; for example Clinton gets inordinate credit simply for being in office at the time of the 90s tech boom.
 
Surrealistik said:
Sure, but in reality and practice the President has very little to do with economic trends most of the time; for example Clinton gets inordinate credit simply for being in office at the time of the 90s tech boom.
Click to expand...


Right. What other position would you pick? Who? How complicated do you want to make it that could be made historically comparable? A deal is a deal and the deal is as I described. Whatever you say will not change it. Ask any historian of related subject. Or who do you think should be asked who should be held responsible instead of the President?
 
bluesmoke said:
Right. What other position would you pick? Who? How complicated do you want to make it that could be made historically comparable? A deal is a deal and the deal is as I described. Whatever you say will not change it. Ask any historian of related subject. Or who do you think should be asked who should be held responsible instead of the President?
Click to expand...

There is no single position you can really accord with a majority culpability; the central bank chair probably comes closest with respect to matters of the economy. That said, bottom line, it remains absurd to credit or disparage a president for economic performance unless there's a definitive way to tie him to it. People may do so, and that may be the tradition, but it's by and large a silly tradition that fulfills a primitive human need for scapegoats and heroes.
 
Surrealistik said:
There is no single position you can really accord with a majority culpability; the central bank chair probably comes closest with respect to matters of the economy. That said, bottom line, it remains absurd to credit or disparage a president for economic performance unless there's a definitive way to tie him to it. People may do so, and that may be the tradition, but it's by and large a silly tradition that fulfills a primitive human need for scapegoats and heroes.
Click to expand...


I wasn't just talking about economic performance as you are. I included foreign affairs, such as the security of our country. The Central Bank Chair, whom is appointed by the President, does not handle foreign affairs, such as the defense of our country. And if you think what I described as absurd, then you must think the same as with presidents of corporations. There is only one person at the top that leads the team and it's the team that gets the job done, not the one at the top. But it's the one at the top that is called the leader, and that's not simply "tradition". That's how people organize themselves since primitive times and is our "organizational DNA". Experiments have been trialed otherwise and have failed.
 
bluesmoke said:
I wasn't just talking about economic performance as you are. I included foreign affairs, such as the security of our country. The Central Bank Chair, whom is appointed by the President, does not handle foreign affairs, such as the defense of our country. And if you think what I described as absurd, then you must think the same as with presidents of corporations. There is only one person at the top that leads the team and it's the team that gets the job done, not the one at the top. But it's the one at the top that is called the leader, and that's not simply "tradition". That's how people organize themselves since primitive times and is our "organizational DNA". Experiments have been trialed otherwise and have failed.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying that there is no/never case to be made for investing the President with majority culpability for economic success or failure. The simple fact is that in most instances it doesn't make sense to, that such success or failure is incidental and has far more to do with matters beyond and distinct from the president, and that, in light of these cases, it is indeed a consequence of irrational tradition and need for scapegoats/heroes to attempt to do so. I do not credit the CEO of Exxon Mobile with a windfall if it's overwhelmingly due to an incidental spike in the price of oil that has exactly zero to do with him; credit comes with policy and decisions that are demonstrably linked to success or failure in my view; others are free to be as irrational and foolish as they like in assigning him and others responsibility.
 
Surrealistik said:
Again, I'm not saying that there is no/never case to be made for investing the President with majority culpability for economic success or failure. The simple fact is that in most instances it doesn't make sense to, that such success or failure is incidental and has far more to do with matters beyond and distinct from the president, and that, in light of these cases, it is indeed a consequence of irrational tradition and need for scapegoats/heroes to attempt to do so. I do not credit the CEO of Exxon Mobile with a windfall if it's overwhelmingly due to an incidental spike in the price of oil that has exactly zero to do with him; credit comes with policy and decisions that are demonstrably linked to success or failure in my view; others are free to be as irrational and foolish as they like in assigning him and others responsibility.
Click to expand...


I agree. As I would going forward in debate to do with arguing which President did better or worse, I will bring up facts attributed by President, though of a nature as you've described, that is truly attributed to the many. The debate might then go from there and be parsed to the next largest factors, to where the facts will follow. I'll follow the facts up and down the scale of big to small and of small to big.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom