Should the economy grow faster?

Many elected Trump assuming the economy should be growing faster than it has been the last eight years. This has been the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history but it averages around 2 to 3 percent GDP, which many consider to be low based on anecdotal views.

However, Fed officials say the economy is already expanding at something close to its maximum sustainable pace, meaning faster growth would drive inflation toward unwelcome levels.

So hence the thread question.

CriticalThought said:

Many elected Trump assuming the economy should be growing faster than it has been the last eight years. This has been the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history but it averages around 2 to 3 percent GDP, which many consider to be low based on anecdotal views.

However, Fed officials say the economy is already expanding at something close to its maximum sustainable pace, meaning faster growth would drive inflation toward unwelcome levels.

So hence the thread question.

Click to expand...

scientists have been spending all their time and energy researching "global warming" and other nonsense when they could have been curing homelessness and creating jobs.

11Bravo said:

scientists have been spending all their time and energy researching "global warming" and other nonsense when they could have been curing homelessness and creating jobs.

Click to expand...

Please show how a scientist can cure homelessness or creating jobs. That isn't a scientists job.

11Bravo said:

scientists have been spending all their time and energy researching "global warming" and other nonsense when they could have been curing homelessness and creating jobs.

Click to expand...

I am really struggling to see how that relates at all to the thread topic. Should the economy grow faster?

CriticalThought said:

I am really struggling to see how that relates at all to the thread topic. Should the economy grow faster?

Click to expand...

it should go faster, but for the reasons i stated it wont.

Praxas said:

Please show how a scientist can cure homelessness or creating jobs. That isn't a scientists job.

Click to expand...

how do u mean? there job is to fix problems by using logic. they are not doing anything to cure homelessness or create jobs.

Praxas said:

Please show how a scientist can cure homelessness or creating jobs. That isn't a scientists job.

Click to expand...

Actually, the main real advantage of sciences is to improve the economic welfare of nations. The nations leading the way in sciences have usually done best as societies. One advantage of that is the jobs it generates.

CriticalThought said:

Many elected Trump assuming the economy should be growing faster than it has been the last eight years. This has been the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history but it averages around 2 to 3 percent GDP, which many consider to be low based on anecdotal views.

However, Fed officials say the economy is already expanding at something close to its maximum sustainable pace, meaning faster growth would drive inflation toward unwelcome levels.

So hence the thread question.

Click to expand...

We haven't been dedicating enough to research and development, it would appear.

The population growth of the US has been slowing for decades. I don't know why having less than perpetual 3% growth is seen as such a dismal outcome.

We'd be better off with steady 1-2% growth than booms and busts.

11Bravo said:

scientists have been spending all their time and energy researching "global warming" and other nonsense when they could have been curing homelessness and creating jobs.

Click to expand...

"Science" and "economics" are rather different things.

Critter7r said:

The population growth of the US has been slowing for decades. I don't know why having less than perpetual 3% growth is seen as such a dismal outcome.

We'd be better off with steady 1-2% growth than booms and busts.

Click to expand...

This. We are generally hearing from the same people how the economy is doing terribly because its only growing by 1.5% and the work force is shrinking so the unemployment rate is a fraud. They fail to see how these two things are inexorably intertwined. A boom generation is starting to retire, a segment of the population is not working because their time isn't valuable enough in a modern economy, and we haven't had any recent major breakthroughs in economically exploitable technology so I think we are seeing precisely what we should be seeing in this scenario. Now that DT is going to blow up the deficit with infrastructure spending (which is needed) while cutting taxes (which is not needed given our massive debt, military needs, and public infrastructure projects that need to be funded), we might see higher growth through governmental stimulus with borrowed money. This does not make our economy "in better shape". Its setting us up for disaster again.

slow and steady is the best path forward, IMO. the economy will expand and retract naturally. accelerated expansion results in bubbles, and when those bubbles pop, you get more catastrophic retractions.

Something to consider is our population growth rate is 3/4 of a percent. Ostensibly, you should see at least that much growth without trying at all. Historically US GDP growth is at or over 3% as the norm.

I think a better question regarding interest rates is should they remain that low for that long of a period? Keeping them low hasn't seemed to spur any growth and investment.

CriticalThought said:

Many elected Trump assuming the economy should be growing faster than it has been the last eight years. This has been the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history but it averages around 2 to 3 percent GDP, which many consider to be low based on anecdotal views.

However, Fed officials say the economy is already expanding at something close to its maximum sustainable pace, meaning faster growth would drive inflation toward unwelcome levels.

So hence the thread question.

Click to expand...

Well the Fed are both staggeringly ignorant on macroeconomic matters AND are incredibly biased on this subject.

On the former: Fed Transcripts Show That Jim Cramer's 'They Know Nothing' Rant Was Right - Business Insider

The Fed are bean counters...not economists. They are semi-clueless how to run an economy.


On the latter, they have been entrusted for many years now to pull America up. Asking them how the economy is going - when it is their responsibility to make it hum - is staggeringly biased.

Besides, if the economy was so great - why are rates so ridiculously low? Only one reason, they are NOT that confident of the economy.

DA60 said:

Well the Fed are both staggeringly ignorant on macroeconomic matters AND are incredibly biased on this subject.

On the former: Fed Transcripts Show That Jim Cramer's 'They Know Nothing' Rant Was Right - Business Insider

The Fed are bean counters...not economists. They are semi-clueless how to run an economy.


On the latter, they have been entrusted for many years now to pull America up. Asking them how the economy is going - when it is their responsibility to make it hum - is staggeringly biased.

Besides, if the economy was so great - why are rates so ridiculously low? Only one reason, they are NOT that confident of the economy.

Click to expand...

That is the thing...they are raising rates. They are doing it slowly in response to how willing banks are to lend. It has been banks that are not particularly confident in the economy...which makes given what happened in 2009.