Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump achievements: Economic policy and labor"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Other tax reform news)
(Other tax reform news)
Line 122: Line 122:
 
:The Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco believes that the tax cuts will have little impact -- if any -- on the economy because it's already doing well: [https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/07/10/tax-law-may-stimulate-economy-less-than-expected-or-maybe-not-at-all-s-f-fed-economists-say/] We'll see how accurate this estimate is. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:32, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
 
:The Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco believes that the tax cuts will have little impact -- if any -- on the economy because it's already doing well: [https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/07/10/tax-law-may-stimulate-economy-less-than-expected-or-maybe-not-at-all-s-f-fed-economists-say/] We'll see how accurate this estimate is. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:32, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
 
::Revenue fell because of the cuts, short-term (however, spending should fall accordingly, and more): [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-narrowed-to-74-86-billion-in-june-1531418402] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:49, 12 July 2018 (EDT)
 
::Revenue fell because of the cuts, short-term (however, spending should fall accordingly, and more): [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-narrowed-to-74-86-billion-in-june-1531418402] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:49, 12 July 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::These articles have (apparently) a completely different take on this: [https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/29530-federal-deficit-up-16-percent-following-tax-reform][https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/feds-collect-record-individual-income-taxes-through-june-still-run][https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/income-tax-revenues-trump-tax-cuts-economic-growth/][https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/federal-tax-revenues-hit-record-highs-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paying-for-themselves/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:47, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
  
 
== Taxes and sovereignty ==
 
== Taxes and sovereignty ==

Revision as of 21:47, 13 July 2018

Foxconn: include or not?

The recent news about the $10 billion Foxconn factory with 13,000 jobs[1][2][3][4][5][6] definitely is good news, but should we include it? My concern is that this is only an announcement and not much more. But, I am open to hearing from other editors about this. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

Foxconn will build another factory in Michigan: [7] This is definitely good news. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2017 (EDT)

Jobless claims at low streak not seen for 43 years

The last time the number of people receiving unemployment benefits was lower than 2 million for 16 weeks was in 1973/1974.[8] A good achievement. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2017 (EDT)

Jobless claims fell to 260,000 by the end of September 2017, a higher drop than expected: [9] Might be good to add to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

Unemployment at record low

In September 2017, unemployment was at 4.2%, the lowest in 16 years -- this might be something we should add[10] (if the rate continues to fall, I'll use the later data. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2017 (EDT)

This source, in passing, states that Asian unemployment is also at a record low,[11] though doing a quick internet search, I couldn't find any other source mentioning this. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2018 (EDT)

More economic statistics

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' October 2017 report appears to be a mixed bag, with unemployment lower than any point since December 2000 but with fewer jobs added during the month than expected.[12] See also: [13] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

More good news on unemployment claims: [14] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2017 (EST)
According to a CEO survey at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, CEOs are very confident about economic growth in the U.S.: [15] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2018 (EST)
According to this Fox News poll, more voters think the economy is doing well than in nearly 20 years: [16] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2018 (EST)

The stock market rose after Trump announced tariffs on solar energy and washing machine products: [17] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2018 (EST)

Good economic statistics for January 2018: [18][19][20][21] This may be something to add, but I'm not sure it's significant enough to do so. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2018 (EST)
The near-45-year-low in unemployment benefits might be over: [22] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2018 (EST)
More consumer confidence news: [23] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2018 (EDT)
Consumer spending is up slightly, and the number of jobless claims is still as a 45-year-low: [24] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
A good reason why it's not a good idea to report economic news based on third-party estimates just before the government releases official data: [25] (other sources: [26][27][28]) --1990'sguy (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
And small business optimism fell more than expected in March: [29] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2018 (EDT)
Black unemployment is continuing to fall: [30] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2018 (EDT)
More on consumer prices: [31] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2018 (EDT)
U.S. economic growth in the first quarter of 2018 was revised downward by 0.1%: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
First Quarter economic growth was revised downward (slightly) again: [32][33][34][35] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2018 (EDT)
Also, jobless claims went up slightly, though the average is still very low (low enough that this might still be something to add): [36][37][38][39] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2018 (EDT)

Apparently, every Republican president since 1909 has seen a recession in their first term: [40] Knowing this, it will be interesting if Trump's presidency follows the trend or not. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2018 (EDT)

This comment is just a parking spot for this source on home sales back in October 2017: [41] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article showing various good U.S. economic statistics, though that only takes up a small part of the article, which also shows statistics from other countries: [42] --1990'sguy (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2018 (EDT)

Economic growth

If this CBO projection is correct, the U.S. economy is growing at its fastest pace in 15 years: [43][44] I'd like to add this, though I'm not a fan of adding estimates and projections to the article, rather than "past-tense" statistics. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

An interesting op-ed on the growth, which might possibly be something good to add: [45] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2018 (EDT)

Other good news

Because of Trump's solar tariffs, a large Chinese solar company will open a manufacturing plant in the U.S.: [46] It seems that liberal/globalist hysteria over the tariffs (which aren't even as harsh as expected) is all without merit. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2018 (EST)

Wages are rising, and the economy (including unemployment numbers) is expected to have a good year this year: [47] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2018 (EST)
Another interesting article on food stamp usage: [48] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2018 (EST)
Stocks rose today after another day of dramatic swings: [49][50][51] The info about stocks in 2018 should probably be checked and improved -- I'll try to do it later once the markets stabilize. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2018 (EST)
The stock market is continuing to recover, with the Dow Jones passing 25,000 points again: [52][53] Assuming there are no more near-term surprises, we should add this to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2018 (EST)
Consumer prices are showing no signs of inflation, a good sign: [54] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2018 (EDT)
More good news: [55] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2018 (EDT)
More sources on the good First Quarter 2018 report that I added: [56][57] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
More economic growth,[58] and according to this Breitbart article, California is actually doing the best despite its opposition to Trump's economic policies that it's benefiting from. However, simple numbers may not tell the whole story, since the benefits of the economic growth in California may not actually benefit the middle class (which is leaving the state). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
The Atlanta Fed is continuing to estimate 4.8% economic growth for this quarter, which might be something to add even though this is only an estimate: [59][60][61][62] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
Some very good news for June, though this is according to an estimate by a non-governmental entity (non-official), so I probably won't add this: [63][64] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2018 (EDT)
Non-menufacturing activity rose in June: [65] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2018 (EDT)

President Trump's statements today on the economy and tax cuts: [66][67] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

Some more great statistics for April, showing the economy is doing well: [68][69] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
Credit card debt is declining, something which might be good to add: [70][71] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
Consumer confidence is doing better than expected: [72] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
A record number of Americans travelled for Memorial Day, something which appears to be a good thing economically: [73][74] It's probably not significant enough to add, but it's still good to note nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2018 (EDT)
According to the Federal Reserve, U.S. household wealth has risen above $100 trillion for the first time in history: [75] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2018 (EDT)
Here's a good op-ed on the positive effect on small businesses by the Trump Administration: [76] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2018 (EDT)
Another interesting op-ed: [77] (and I just added the op-ed above to the article) --1990'sguy (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2018 (EDT)
Here's a video clip of the CNBC survey I mentioned in the article, which is interesting but which I won't add to the article: [78] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2018 (EDT)
U.S. rental growth has reached its lowest level since 2010, which appears to partially be because of the strong economy, though other factors are also responaible for this: [79][80] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
A record number of people will be traveling for Independence Day: [81][82] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

According to this article, business/corporation owners like Trump's presidency because of his pro-business measures such as tax cuts and deregulation: [83] I won't add this because The Economist article, which is what the Axios article reports about, takes an anti-Trump stance and argues that Trump will hurt businesses in the long run in that article. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2018 (EDT)

Bloomberg misrepresented in a Breitbart article

For editors who have not followed User:1990'sguy to Andy's talk page, there are two different concepts being confused:

  • Idea #1: 13-year record quarterly earnings - this means that if you look at quarterly earnings for the last 13 years, the most recently reported earnings are the highest for that company. (This has nothing to do with forecast or estimated earnings.)
  • Idea #2: 13-year record quarterly earning season - this means that if you count the number of S&P 500 companies where their actual earnings for the quarter exceeded the estimated earnings projections for that same quarter for each company.

Bloomberg said idea #2. Breitbart then misread it and repeated it as idea #1. User:1990'sguy then summarized idea #1 and added it to the article.diff I then corrected it to reflect the Bloomberg article (idea #2) and the facts. diff Very few companies have reported "their best earnings in 13 years." Bloomberg is saying that a record number of companies are doing better than earlier estimates -- it might be because everyone was conservative in their estimates or that the dollar weakened faster than expected, or both. It does not mean that if you look at each company, this last earnings will be higher than any other quarter in 13 years. Perhaps we can have more editors comment on this.

I have been carefully adding back in the comparison between forecast earnings and actual reported earnings, and User:1990'sguy keeps taking it out so as to create a false claim that most of the S&P 500 have posted their highest quarterly earnings in 13 years. Please help us keep this accurate. If we can't state it accurately, perhaps it is not worth including. JDano (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2017 (EDT)

I think I have adequately explained my position here. Let's just wait to see what Andy thinks. Even if your wording is correct, I see no reason to remove the Breitbart reference. I've seen much worse errors (although I don't think the Breitbart article, which cites the Bloomberg article and directly quotes it, is in error) in MSM sources. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2017 (EDT)
I have no idea what your position is. Do accept that there are two separate concepts: one involving the absolute size of earnings and the other involves counting how many companies beat their forecast or "estimated earnings"? (See Idea #1 and Idea #2 above). If so, what in your opinion was the Bloomberg article reporting (Idea #1 or Idea #2)? Is the achievement about a companies breaking their 13-year earning records (showing a healthy economy)? Or is it about exceeding the earnings forecasts (showing a crummy forecasting model, that did not properly consider the weakening dollar)? If you tell me what you believe in your own words, we can find language that fits. JDano (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2017 (EDT)

Attracting American workers

Silicon Vally companies may have already begun to raise their wages in order to attract American workers.[84] This is good, but this report does not appear to be confirmed -- if it has even started happening -- so I will not add this now. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2017 (EDT)

You are correct that economic changes can have long lag times. What criteria are we going to use to decide what can be reported and when? JDano (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2017 (EDT)
Enough with your silly proposals for bureaucratic "criteria." The standards are clear: if something is to be added as an achievement, it must advance conservative ideals/policies. The achievement must be tangible and/or verified, rather than speculation, unless noted otherwise. This info does not regard policy achievements initiated by the administration, but rather the effect of administration policies or the mindset created by a positive perception of the Administration's policies. The same standards apply -- it must advance conservative principles/ideals. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2017 (EDT)

Reagan in DoL Hall of Fame

Ronald Reagan will be inducted into the Department of Labor's "Hall of Fame."[85][86][87][88] He was the only U.S. president to have led a labor union, but as president, he took some anti-union actions, such as firing the 11,000 PATCO employees -- a symbolic action, but one where someone who took anti-union actions was honored by the DoL. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Stock Market records

The largest number of record high closes for the Dow Jones is 70 (which it reached in 1995).[89] As of today (10/18), the Dow Jones has had 48 record high closes.[90] This might be worth mentioning in the article at the end of the year, after we know the final number for 2017. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

Here's an article by Breitbart on this: [91] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2017 (EST)
Nasdaq reached another all-time high today: [92] It might be something to add, though I haven't seen too much news about it (though I haven't searched specifically for this today either). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

More stock market developments

The stock market has been more nuanced in the past few months: [93][94] Fortunately, it's been partially for the right reason -- globalist hysteria over Trump's economic nationalist agenda. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2018 (EDT)

I removed a large amount of info because it was dated and did not adequately summarize the stock market's past few months, and I added a better summary. I added the diff here for future reference. Also, here is what seems to be an interesting article on this by The New York Times, which might be good to add, but which I didn't add because of the site's paywall and because I'm worried it's overly biased against Trump: [95] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
Some more good news on stocks, though the news might be too "at the moment" to add: [96] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2018 (EDT)

Fed appointments

Trump apparently has a historic opportunity to reshape the composition and stances of the Federal Reserve due to an unusually large number of vacancies in the agency.[97][98] This might be worth adding to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (EST)

As long as he does get some good people in, that would be a good achievement. If only he could actually get rid of the fed again.... --David B (TALK) 22:42, 7 November 2017 (EST)
If only we had a president who would continue to oppose the existence of all of the independent regulatory agencies after being elected. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Trump just nominated Marvin Goodfriend, a conservative who is critical of the Fed, to serve on the board of governors: [99] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (EST)

Another article on how Trump can reshape the Fed: [100] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

More on the Fed

An interesting, though short, article on the changes happening at the Fed: [101] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2018 (EDT)

Corporate raises because of tax bill

More and more companies are announcing big raises because of the tax bill: [102][103][104][105][106] I'll see if I can add more of this to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2018 (EST)

More on this: [107][108] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

Other tax reform news

Here's a somewhat interesting article on the tax bill's effect on companies shifting their profits to tax havens: [109] The article argues that the bill is not helping solve this issue. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

The Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco believes that the tax cuts will have little impact -- if any -- on the economy because it's already doing well: [110] We'll see how accurate this estimate is. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
Revenue fell because of the cuts, short-term (however, spending should fall accordingly, and more): [111] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2018 (EDT)
These articles have (apparently) a completely different take on this: [112][113][114][115] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

Taxes and sovereignty

This opinion article is interesting: [116] I've known for a little while that the EU-imperialists don't want to just have control over Europe, and this is yet another example of this. Hopefully, Trump will do keep an eye out on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2018 (EDT)

Other sovereignty issues

The Trump Administration released a statement describing a part of the Dodd-Frank repeal bill it found problematic -- a part of the law saying the federal government had to take certain positions in front of international organizations: [117] The wording is not clear, but this seems like a potential threat to U.S. sovereignty. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2018 (EDT)

Direct foreign investment in the U.S. fell by 32% in 2017, which might have a good indirect effect on economic sovereignty: [118] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump and labor unions

This may not be significant enough to add, but the Trump Administration was trying to enforce a collective bargaining agreement that a union did not support: [119] The administration has, fortunately, been taking a tougher stance on unions. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2018 (EDT)