Revisiting the economic predictions from the progressive establishment

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

No. 

I guess his investments aren't going all that well.

[Tommy Callahan]

lol, and that was just the first.

 

Seems every fear card they pushed since Hillary lost, has been a fat nothing burger.

 

 

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

 

[/dev/null]

 

[DC Tom]

52 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

 

It's just a rebranded March of the Penguins.

[Q-baby!]

5 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

No. 

Wow, that hurts. 

[Magox]

 

 

When I read this article yesterday it reminded me of this topic.  

 

Mark Zandi back at it again:

 

 

Quote

 

Most significantly, the economy is growing slowly, barely enough to generate the jobs needed to keep unemployment low. The president promised that his large tax cuts to mostly big corporations and high-income households would fuel sustainably stronger growth. They haven't. Instead the nation is struggling with trillion-dollar budget deficits and an increasingly heavy debt load.

 

If the economy were to slow any further, for whatever reason, then unemployment would begin to rise. Once unemployment increases, even from low levels, recession becomes more likely than not. Consumers immediately sense the weakening economy since it means fewer job openings, smaller pay increases and no bonuses. They become more cautious. Businesses see this and pull back further on their hiring. They may even begin laying off workers. Unemployment rises more, and a self-reinforcing negative dynamic — a recession — takes hold.

 

This hasn't happened. But it is prudent to be nervous that this vicious cycle could take hold. Despite trade progress with China, there's still debilitating uncertainty created by President Trump's trade war. While businesses may now believe the president won't escalate the war before the 2020 election, they remain unsure what he will do if reelected. Since his trade war has not solved the big problems we have with the Chinese, such as intellectual property protection, cybersecurity and more access to their markets, it is almost certain he will double down on his war should he win a second term.

 

 

 

Here is another gem of an opinion from Krugman just 6 months ago:

 

Quote

 

Last year, after an earlier stock market swoon brought on by headlines about the U.S.-China trade conflict, I laid out three rules for thinking about such events. First, the stock market is not the economy. Second, the stock market is not the economy. Third, the stock market is not the economy.

But maybe I should add a fourth rule: The bond market sorta kinda is the economy.

An old economists’ joke says that the stock market predicted nine of the last five recessions. Well, an “inverted yield curve” — when interest rates on short-term bonds are higher than on long-term bonds — predicted six of the last six recessions. And a plunge in long-term yields, which are now less than half what they were last fall, has inverted the yield curve once again, with the short-versus-long spread down to roughly where it was in early 2007, on the eve of a disastrous financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s.

Neither I nor anyone else is predicting a replay of the 2008 crisis. It’s not even clear whether we’re heading for recession. But the bond market is telling us that the smart money has become very gloomy about the economy’s prospects. Why? The Federal Reserve basically controls short-term rates, but not long-term rates; low long-term yields mean that investors expect a weak economy, which will force the Fed into repeated rate cuts.

So what accounts for this wave of gloom? Much though not all of it is a vote of no confidence in Donald Trump’s economic policies.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------snip---------

Now, a word of caution: Bond markets are telling us that the smart money is gloomy about economic prospects, but the smart money can be wrong. In fact, it has been wrong in the recent past. Investors were clearly far too optimistic last fall, but they may be too pessimistic now.

But pessimistic they are. The bond market, which is the best indicator we have, is declaring that Trumponomics was a flop.

 

I always like looking back at these sort of articles, specially when it comes from partisan economists.  They are so invested in their positions that the slightest hint that they could be right they feel compelled to put themselves on the record and prematurely proclaim victory.   I like it when they do that.

 

 

Quote

 

Wages for nonsupervisory employees — who make up 82% of the workforce — are rising at the fastest rate in more than a decade, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Why it matters: It indicates that the benefits of a tightening labor market and a time of historically low unemployment rates are finally being passed along to most workers.

The big picture: Workers at the bottom of the pay scale have been feeling positive effects on their wages at the end of 2019 — especially when compared to those at the top.

• Pay rates the bottom 25% of wage earners rose 4.5% in November from a year earlier, while wages for the top 25% of earners rose only 2.9%, per data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
• The bank also found that the rate of pay rises for low-skilled workers matched those for high-skilled workers last month for the first time since 2010.

 

 

 

 

These opinions from partisan economists that say that the Tax cuts have only benefited the rich and corporations are truly incredulous.

 

It flies in the face of most of the economic data that has been coming out aside from Manufacturing, which I suspect will turn around over the next couple years.

 

Economists are shocked that the hiring has been this strong.   Hardly anyone predicted this, then they moved their focus to these ignorant sort of AOC/Bernie sort of claims that "well that's because most people are working two jobs" 

 

They claimed that wages weren't rising except for the rich.  This is simply not true, wages in fact have been rising for everyone and more so for the lower wage earners.    

 

Economic partisans won't ever admit that they were wrong. 

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

 

When I read this article yesterday it reminded me of this topic.  

 

Mark Zandi back at it again:

 

 

Most significantly, the economy is growing slowly, barely enough 

 

"Barely enough?"  So what I get from that is...this is, finally, no longer Obama's economic rally?

[Magox]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

"Barely enough?"  So what I get from that is...this is, finally, no longer Obama's economic rally?

 

 

It's a preposterous position because all you would have to do is read through his praises of Obama's economy when he was president to his opinions over the past few years and there are so many logical fallacies and inconsistencies with his views that he twists himself into a 3D pretzel.. 

 

The only problem I have with the tax cut is that it does contribute a nice chunk of change into the National Debt.   But I have to say that I went from being a deficit hawk to something pretty close to a 180 degree view of it over the past few years.  I criticized Cheney and found it laughable when he said "Deficits don't matter" to now thinking -  He was on to something.

 

It matters, but not in all cases.  If you are a country that isn't able to generate a lot of revenue, then deficits matter.  But in the case of the U.S who has the dollar as the world's reserve currency and despite all the talk, the U.S is still by far the most attractive flight to safety for investors in the world and it's ability to generate revenues like no other, deficits truly almost don't matter.

 

I'll save that discussion for another day.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Magox

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

 

It's a preposterous position because all you would have to do is read through his praises of Obama's economy when he was president to his opinions over the past few years and there are so many logical fallacies and inconsistencies with his views that he twists himself into a 3D pretzel.. 

 

The only problem I have with the tax cut is that it does contribute a nice chunk of change into the National Debt.   But I have to say that I went from being a deficit hawk to something pretty close to a 180 degree view of it over the past few years.  I criticized Cheney and found it laughable when he said "Deficits don't matter" to now thinking -  He was on to something.

 

It matters, but not in all cases.  If you are a country that isn't able to generate a lot of revenue, then deficits matter.  But in the case of the U.S who has the dollar as the world's reserve currency and despite all the talk, the U.S is still by far the most attractive flight to safety for investors in the world and it's ability to generate revenues like no other, deficits truly almost don't matter.

 

I'll save that discussion for another day.

i think QE(almost)Infinity pretty much made the argument for the, 'deficits don't matter' perspective. we are almost doing it again, today with the liquidity that is being injected into the banks.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Foxx

[/dev/null]

26 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i think QE(almost)Infinity pretty much made the argument for the, 'deficits don't matter' perspective. we are almost doing it again, today with the liquidity that is being injected into the banks.

QE2Infinity&Beyond, Deficits dont matter, and Modern MonetaryTheory are awesome as the bubble inflates.  Once it pops, things are gonna get messy

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

QE2Infinity&Beyond, Deficits dont matter, and Modern MonetaryTheory are awesome as the bubble inflates.  Once it pops, things are gonna get messy

of course, it's all champagne and caviar until then. this is also why cryptos are presently being set up, to make the transition as smooth as possible. 

[Nanker]

Time is running out to take your RMDs if you turned 70 1/2 in 2019.

 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Time is running out to take your RMDs if you turned 70 1/2 in 2019.

 

Hyman Roth waited too long and do you see what happened to him?

[TPS]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

 

It's a preposterous position because all you would have to do is read through his praises of Obama's economy when he was president to his opinions over the past few years and there are so many logical fallacies and inconsistencies with his views that he twists himself into a 3D pretzel.. 

 

The only problem I have with the tax cut is that it does contribute a nice chunk of change into the National Debt.   But I have to say that I went from being a deficit hawk to something pretty close to a 180 degree view of it over the past few years.  I criticized Cheney and found it laughable when he said "Deficits don't matter" to now thinking -  He was on to something.

 

It matters, but not in all cases.  If you are a country that isn't able to generate a lot of revenue, then deficits matter.  But in the case of the U.S who has the dollar as the world's reserve currency and despite all the talk, the U.S is still by far the most attractive flight to safety for investors in the world and it's ability to generate revenues like no other, deficits truly almost don't matter.

 

I'll save that discussion for another day.

Or, if you were reading any of my posts on deficits....?

 

Btw, despite his hatred of Trump, Krugman wasn't really off on the bond market discussion.  Manufacturing experienced a downtown for most of this year due to the trade war; and RGDP also fell back to 2%.  The service economy, consumer and government spending drove most of the positive growth.  Given these issues, the FED reversed its policy which eliminated the inverted yield curve.  

38 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

QE2Infinity&Beyond, Deficits dont matter, and Modern MonetaryTheory are awesome as the bubble inflates.  Once it pops, things are gonna get messy

People have been posting these kinds of things for as long as I've been here, which is from the start of TBD and PPP...

Edited December 27, 2019 by TPS

[Magox]

11 minutes ago, TPS said:

Or, if you were reading any of my posts on deficits....?

People have been posting these kinds of things for as long as I've been here, which is from the start of TBD and PPP...

 

My position has changed on this topic.  I do believe there is a day or reckoning but I can’t possibly see that happening anytime soon or for that matter while the US maintaining its reserve currency status.   
 

Some country would have to dethrone the US for that to happen and right now there is no country that in the foreseeable future can even challenge the US for that role.

 

I was more dogmatic on my views of QE and deficits years back but the data has led me to change my views to an extent.  So there still is a qualifier there but it’s a remote possibility at this juncture.

 

Also, an area that you were more right than wrong and I was more wrong than right was the view that I believed we would see astonishing levels of inflation.   Even though prices of many important consumer goods did go up such as food and energy which are large components for lower wage workers did feel those inflationary pressures but the Wall Street gauges ie. wage inflation never materialized due to the slack in the economy caused by the Great Recession.

 

I will give you credit on that one.  On the other hand your views on how prescient of an economist that Krugman is, not so much.   ?

[row_33]

At least 15 Black Monday/Tuesdays were guaranteed 

[/dev/null]

34 minutes ago, TPS said:

 

People have been posting these kinds of things for as long as I've been here, which is from the start of TBD and PPP...

Okay Boomer

[row_33]

44 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Hyman Roth waited too long and do you see what happened to him?

hyman Roth has been dying from the same heart attack for 20 years now

 

but he can’t get his birthday wish of taking a pee that doesn’t hurt 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Hyman Roth waited too long and do you see what happened to him?

 

Didn't he join the IRA?