🇳🇱
@sillystring@infosec.exchange
> I mean look at the turn over. As a business person he is terrible.
I never said he was a good businessman or even a good president. He was horrible at both, Biden just happens to be far worse.
With that said he had a signficantly better impact on both the stock exchange and the unemployment rate than Biden's run as Vice President, right up until the coronavirus. But it would be foolish to compare a complete economic shutdown under Trump to any other period in time, the fallout from that is inevitable. Even so aside from doing much better than Biden pre-coronavirus his unemployment rate recovery after the bulk of the epidemic was at a higher rate than we have ever seen from any other economic crash in history.
Trump literally hit two records as president that havent been matched in the lifetime of anyone living: 1) he managed to get the unemployment rate to the lowest it has been in living history 2) he managed to see the fastest recovery of unemployment following an economic crash of any incident in history.
While I wouldnt say these two facts make him a good president, credit where credit is due, and there isnt much Biden has ever accomplished worthy of any praise, and a **lot** he has done horrifically wrong.
> Biden is superior by merely not instigating mayhem.
I wouldnt say that describes him or the democrats any more or less than Trump.
We certainly had some isolated cases of violence at teh capital, and that isn't acceptable, but trump was one of the very first people to get on the TV and tell them that violence was unacceptable.
Meanwhile I spent the bulk of the year watching democrat protests burn down buildings and cop cars in my city tot he point that the sky was black with smoke. I didnt see biden decrying those incidents or calling out the violence at all.
@freemo @sillystring @SmilingTexan
I call bullshit on that; Trump was riding the economic wave the presidency before him created. The plain proof IQ45 didn’t know shit about macro economics is the fact that he regularly compared economic growth with the situation on Wall St.
while I dont think Trump was particularly smart or know anything about macroeconomics the plain fact is, he was successful in that regard and the data shows it.
The data also doesnt agree with the notion that he was riding the wave of the previous president. Unemployment improvements follow logarithmic scales naturally, not linear ones. This should be obvious, of course, if you have a population of a 1,000,000 with 100% unemployed then an improvement if 1%, that is getting 10,000 people emoployed is easy, your just employing the top 1% most skilled people in the whole country and the top 1% most eager to work. However if you have a country of 1,000,000 and only 10,000 are unemployed and they are the last 10K in the whole country then getting that same 1% improvement is significantly more difficult and represents a near impossible effort as now you are trying to get the 1% least skilled and least willing to work employed.
We can easily confirm this to be true... on a few points. Simply look at their track record (and make sure you do it on a log-scale or else its useless)...
1) Trumps improvement represented an acceleration over obamas, not a continuation.
2) Obama had mixed results to say the least, with the unemployment rate increasing by 2% during his term, and falling by a new of only 3% following that.
3) Obamas minimum unemployment rate achieved was also unimpressive historically 10 times over the past 70 years other administrations have been able to get unemployment rates lower than that of Obama, even Bush his predecessor managed to have a lower unemployment rate than Obama
4) Trumps minimum unemployment rate, however, was record setting. 1953 (67 years ago) was the last time any administration was able to get an unemployment rate as low as Trumps
Look Trump sucked, a lot, and yes his low IQ made him an idiot, but it serves no purpose to distort the truth or ignore the **very few** things he did. the unemployment rate he achieved was impressive and the data backs that up, and the excuse that it was somehow magically Obamas fault, even though it was achieved over 3 years **after** Obama just makes your arguments and personal bias appear unsound.
I will be the first to agree Trump was a horrific president, but I also wont make up imaginary ways in which he sucked more than he did just because I cant admit that a broken clock is right twice a day.
@freemo @sillystring @SmilingTexan
Would there be a need to correct the figures for the time it takes for measures to have an effect? Some interventions take longer before they are “felt” and it is sometimes hard to prove a direct correlation.
@srwennekes Which measure, specifically, do you feel wont take effect for 3 years, and would have increasingly stronger effects over those three years regardless of any decisions Trump could ? Do you even have specific examples?
@freemo its a long time I studied Macro Economics so nothing comes to mind directly, but an example indirectly related: to beat unemployment the Nazi regime invested in programs where unemployed were engaged to build infrastructure (the famous autobahn for an example) this had an initial direct effect, but the improved infrastructure also led to other economic advantages and thus growth and subsequent job creation the latter however is hard to quantify.
@srwennekes Well unless you could actually cite something he did that could bring about the results we saw then there isnt much of an an argument there, particularly considering he dealt with a recession, had sketchy unemployment results at best, the rate at which we saw improvement in unemployment was middling from obama, and overall he wasted money on war and increased the deficit.. so not much he did would suggest he was on track for creating a 70 year record low in unemployement.
@srwennekes that would depend on how you measure it and what you call call a deficit. He engaged in Quantitative Easing through a lot of his presidential career, which means he effectively printed new money and used it to buy private assets which then is used to offset the deficit. So he basically traded in the value of the dollar for a lower deficit. Which by any measure is not an improvement, though it may seem like on on paper. He didnt do anything in terms of actual economy building however that would improve the economic stance of the USA.
@freemo I could have the wrong impression but I thought the deficit had decreased during the Obama years? I have no access to figures at the moment, so I could be totally wrong here.