The Trump Deficit

[Belz...]

The last honest Republican.

Which one?

 

[Segnosaur]

Yeah “blaming” the President for a recession is a little silly. The President doesn’t have much short term control over economic conditions and in fact modest recessions are a fairly normal and even healthy thing for an economy.

I agree... the president doesn't have enough control to completely create or prevent recessions. But, they can engage in activities that might make them happen sooner or later, and/or make them worse.

We've had around a decade of economic growth following the 2008/9 recession. Its probably expected that one will happen in the next few years. But Trump is likely going to speed up that schedule.

Depending on how it plays out Trump is setting an even bigger economic bomb for the US economy by attacking the independence of the Federal Reserve. If Fed independence is eroded expect not just one crash but a series of them and long term stagnation of the US economy. Political interference in central banks is an economy killer, it’s one of only few things that can truly destroy a countries economy.

Lots of bombs that Trump has left around:
- Federal reserve attacks
- Tax cuts and huge deficits (meaning that when the next recession occurs, whomever is in charge will have little flexibility to fix the problems)
- Removal of financial regulations, that will make the economy less stable. (Hey, the economy crashed in 2008 because of deregulation! Lets try to recreate the glory days!)
- Protectionist trade policies

 

[lomiller]

We've had around a decade of economic growth following the 2008/9 recession. Its probably expected that one will happen in the next few years. But Trump is likely going to speed up that schedule.

Maybe, but what typically ends these long growth periods is wage inflation sets in and the Fed needs raise rates to keep inflation under control. Fallout from a Trumps trade wars could throw the US into recession, but interest rates are still not far above historic lows and while there are still lots of people waiting to re-enter the work force.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe, but what typically ends these long growth periods is wage inflation sets in and the Fed needs raise rates to keep inflation under control. Fallout from a Trumps trade wars could throw the US into recession, but interest rates are still not far above historic lows and while there are still lots of people waiting to re-enter the work force.

It isn't like wage growth has been an issue for generations anyway.

 

[lobosrul5]

Maybe, but what typically ends these long growth periods is wage inflation sets in and the Fed needs raise rates to keep inflation under control. Fallout from a Trumps trade wars could throw the US into recession, but interest rates are still not far above historic lows and while there are still lots of people waiting to re-enter the work force.
[qimg]https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=owKX[/qimg]

A big part of the reason fewer people are working than the late 90's are baby boomers have started to retire in mass. We will probably never return to that 64% of adults working number. However, its not the entirety of it, the unemployment rate only measures who is looking for a job. There a lot of "discouraged" people out there that would like to work.

 

[Allen773]

Republicans haven’t genuinely cared about fiscal restraint (unless there’s a Democrat in office: see below) since, as Dick Cheney put it, “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”

The post-Reagan Republican idea of “fiscal responsibility”, far as I can tell from observation of patterns and policies, is to massively cut taxes on rich people, increase military spending, and then, when a Democrat is elected President, relentlessly attack “tax-and-spend liberalism” (as opposed to borrow-and-spend conservatism, but who’s keeping score!) until the Democratic President agrees to austerity measures aimed at cutting things that benefit poor and working class people - which, of course, is a very politically popular move for the Democrats!

Pretty crafty political strategy for Republicans, I must admit.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So, does any of this Fed stuff have anything to do with the entire market dropping in the last few days? I don't understand much about the economy but I do notice when all my mutual funds drop simultaneously, especially the S&P 500 and total market index ones.

 

[Segnosaur]

So, does any of this Fed stuff have anything to do with the entire market dropping in the last few days? I don't understand much about the economy but I do notice when all my mutual funds drop simultaneously, especially the S&P 500 and total market index ones.

Probably not. I think the drop in the markets have more to do with the on-going trade war with China (Trump's latest Tariff announcements seem to be the most immediate concern.)

The deficit might cause economic problems in the long term, but investors are often incredibly short-sighted, worrying about small things that have an immediate impact and ignoring bigger problems if they won't cause problems for some time.

 

[Trebuchet]

Yeah, one headline I saw yesterday was "China Tarrif's Cause Market Plunge" or some such.

 

[lomiller]

So, does any of this Fed stuff have anything to do with the entire market dropping in the last few days? I don't understand much about the economy but I do notice when all my mutual funds drop simultaneously, especially the S&P 500 and total market index ones.

The Fed announced a reduction in it’s target rate which would normally cause the stock market to go up. This dip can probably be attributed to Trump announcing a new round of tariffs in his trade war with China.

 

[Solitaire]

Depending on how it plays out Trump is setting an even bigger economic bomb
for the US economy by attacking the independence of the Federal Reserve.
If Fed independence is eroded expect not just one crash but a series of them
and long term stagnation of the US economy. Political interference in central
banks is an economy killer, it’s one of only few things that can truly destroy
a countries economy.

Well, he has no choice. If he doesn't take control of the FED then he gets
a mild recession in year six and the blamed for the state of the economy.

With control of the FED he can cover one trillion dollar deficit on a twenty
trillion dollar debt. He needs only five percent for the debt, another three
percent to cover interest payments, and – let see, four trillion national
spending out of twenty trillion economy, increase about four hundred
billion, okay — another two percent to cover rising government costs
for total of ten percent inflation.

That will work for the short time he has left in office.
The next guy can worry about the repercussions.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The one hopeful thing about the US deficit is that it would be so easy to reduce by shrinking the size and price of the military.
All we need is bipartisan support for that ...

 

[a_unique_person]

All these tariff increases will be helping the deficit.

 

[Lurch]

The one hopeful thing about the US deficit is that it would be so easy to reduce by shrinking the size and price of the military.
All we need is bipartisan support for that ...

The US populace is so reflexively conditioned to leap to attention at any mention of the saint-like Military that all reason is abandoned. The only condition is that more money must be poured in. Never mind that already the military budget eclipses that of the next 7 competing countries combined.

A nation of cowed, frightened cowards, welding a big stick like the bully she has become.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The disproportionality of the US defense budget is even more stark when considering the number of military personnel. The size of the US Forces has steadily declined while the spending has ballooned.
The DoD has admitted that it just can't find qualified candidates.
But an effective military requires bodies, not just hardware.