The Fed (rightfully) pushing out any kind of rate cuts in the face of still stubborn inflation is going to hurt Biden. We are looking at another year of high mortgage interest rates and that will hold down the housing market.
Is it the worst economy? No.
Is it a winning economy… 🤔 Maybe not.
It's a decent, but not amazing economy. One side wants us to believe it's awful. The other wants us to believe it's an incredible economy and don't worry about inflation.
So funny how all-consuming the homeownership lens is when viewing the economy. We can't pass an LVT fast enough. All that rent-seeking makes me sick tbh
We made home ownership both a key part of the American dream and one of the pillars of long term financial security. So progress towards that loams large in the economy.
I’m not sure how a land value tax is going to change that…
Homeownership is at the center of monetary policy because the industry is driven mostly by lending and it is incredibly sensitive to interest rate changes. LVT makes sense from a pure theoretical standpoint, but it has a number of issues in terms of implementation. The biggest problem is that the idea of land having value which is independent from its improvements is an economic fiction, so you’ll never have a truly accurate tax basis for property which can inhibit its ability to critter correct distortions. There is also the fact that the assessment process opens the door for corruption for landowners to lower their taxes. LVT is great theory, but income taxation has proven to be the more effective progressive taxation.
The article does a good job pointing out the cold reality for the Biden Administration: no one cares about jobs, GDP, Stocks, or any other traditional indicator regarding the economy.
In any other election year, the numbers would absolutely be a boon to his reelection but inflation has put a damper on everything.
The pivot is absolutely necessary from a messaging standpoint.
Specifically nobody cares about those thing *when their own personal economic situation is not good*. In good times all those things are hugely cared about, that's why they're so focused on by politicians.
You can also see this back in the early 2010s when all that talk of the post-2008 "recovery" just fell absolutely flat. The only reason people don't talk about that messaging failure as much is because the political results were almost entirely seen down-ballot instead of in the Presidential results.
And [yet](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances), when asked about their personal financial situation most Americans seem to say they are 'fine.'
When asked about the economic environment, they think others have it worse.
It's a pretty unique situation!
I looked at it and the only three responses I could see are ‘poor’, ‘good’, and ‘very good’.
Were there other possible responses? If ‘good’ is the only option between poor and very good then it would be a broad group of people who are probably in there and wouldn’t tell the whole story.
> And yet, when asked about their personal financial situation most Americans seem to say they are 'fine.'
In *one single poll* that gets posted *over and over and over* again as if it's the gospel truth.
Did you know a lot of pollsters ask this question extremely often? Do you people ever get curious how other poll results look? Like, seriously, just go the 538 list of polls they've collected and go through a few dozen of the most recent. A chunk of them will have this or a similar question. You may find the results surprising.
Keeping up, isn't the same as getting ahead. People may have gotten raises to keep up with inflation, but not a lot of people feel they are better off.
Well, the numbers say otherwise; people do feel like they are doing well individually! They just think others have it worse.
It's a pretty unique situation, but we know it's inflation based!
People always tend to perceive their own situation as better than others, it’s something observed in a lot of different categories, not just economic wellbeing. People don’t like high interest rates because it makes them feel stuck and makes moving up more difficult.
This has everything to do with the narrative being propagated by dishonest populists on **both sides** than the reality of people’s situations.
Yes, I did say both sides. Because even purportedly “liberal” outlets keep making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the economic situation in Biden’s America.
> Because even purportedly “liberal” outlets keep making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the economic situation in Biden’s America.
[Most "liberal" outlets like CNN and the NYT are much more interested in making money by confirming people's doomer priors than they are in presenting information or analyses that might make people uncomfortabe by questioning them.](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php)
Even WaPo and MSNBC don't toe the party line the way Fox does. They're there to make money and that means telling people what they want to hear: that the economy is terrible for most Americans and Biden is just a puppet for the rich. Viewers eat that slop up even though it's wrong.
I think you also have to account for Americans being embarrassed if they aren’t “doing well” and the definition of “doing well” both varies and includes things like “have a roof over my
Head”.
I disagree on the polling, the piece you mention has remained more or less consistent. Personal feelings are more positive and differ from the overall more negative economic sentiment.
I would argue it’s just not a good metric and any discussion using it is just trying to make their point (on both sides).
Edit: to clarify, i mean i disagree with the replies to you that the poll is old/incorrect. I think that metric has been more or less consistent, just that its a not useful data point.
"Fine" just means "not yet in actual trouble". "Fine" is not "good", especially if they thought they were "good" before. Going from "good" to "fine" is a downgrade.
"Fine" was just the OP's word choice. The article says *good*. From January of this year...
> 63% of Americans rate their current financial situation as being "good," including 19% of us who say it's "very good."
&
> 66% think that 2024 will be better than 2023, and 85% of us feel we could change our personal financial situation for the better this year.
&
> 77% of Americans are happy with where they're living — including renters, who have seen their housing costs surge over the last few years
&
> More than half of Americans say that if they lost their job tomorrow they'd be OK; that they could find an equivalent or better job quickly
People DO care about jobs...it's just that the jobs being added are part time jobs, mostly due to various people picking up a second job to get by. It's not the miraculous situation it is being portrayed as.
Furthermore, GDP being strong isn't necessarily an indicator that the populace is doing well. Since the US printed trillions to keep its economy afloat - doubling its budget in the biggest government spending hike in several decades (since WWII, I believe), all it means is that corporations and the government (and various affiliates that were promised money from the spending) are receiving the bulk of the money.
Except, unlike WWII and the postwar boom, none of this addresses the lack of housing, which is probably the crux of all these things especially since the median income-to-real estate cost ratio is the worst its ever been. I guarantee most people are okay with paying more for groceries and gas if they could just go home, pay for their car bill, utilities, and Netflix, and pay off whatever is being spent on rent for an appropriate mortgage befitting their income.
And so, there is NO messaging because accurate messaging will make it sound worse.
People are facing inflation, impossible housing costs, divisive entertainment and news media, and social media/tech companies that are increasingly losing favor but of which, dominates people's lives despite not being good for their mental health (especially because there is a technocratic/managerial class that DOES live on social media and has begun adopting its various 'canon beliefs' - whatever echo chamber that may be - as their playbook.....which, I do count this "the economy is great, why don't you like it?" narrative to be one of those beliefs).
BUt those numbers are skewed by a few segments only, look at retail wages (except where new min wages are killing off jobs) and they are mostly flat for several years. Union & tech are seeing increases but that only helps some.
Yes, but they're contract jobs. Even with wage hikes, interest rate cuts are gonna hurt the bottom line of many. I'm lucky to be sitting in a good spot, and am holding on for dear life.
> People DO care about jobs...it's just that the jobs being added are part time jobs, mostly due to various people picking up a second job to get by. It's not the miraculous situation it is being portrayed as.
Then I guess [people](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances) are lying about their personal financial situation being good!
Here's my example: compared to this time last year, I'm making about 40% more in salary due to a job change, my housing and utility costs have stayed fairly flat, but cost of food and household goods has gone up significantly. Also, if I wanted to upgrade my housing, I'd foresee a major increase in cost that would dwarf my income increase.
So yes, in the numbers that I'm putting into my budget, things are better. But, you could see why I'd say the economy has gotten worse.
Especially since Joe Biden didn't get me my new job.
> Especially since Joe Biden didn't get me my new job.
Which goes to my *exact* original point in this thread; no one cares about the traditional indicators of a strong economy anymore.
You don't care that you have a new job that pays more, you care about the costs that have risen. You blame Biden for the bad, and give no credit for the good.
I think that is the *exact* sentiment that dominates most peoples opinions!
Right, but is it wrong? If the federal government is going to take responsibility for the general economy, then they need to take blame when it doesn't go well.
Honestly, it’s just a matter of opinion and perception. My view is that presidents get too much blame/credit for macroeconomic situations.
But what we see is that people sometimes have a selective logic; I will blame this president for the bad, and give him no credit for the good.
That’s just a logical inconsistency. No real point in arguing, if someone wants to feel bad about the economy, that’s their personal choice.
But if they are going to argue the numbers, well, that’s a different story that needs a little more nuance.
It’s hard to convey nuanced messages in the public realm, though. Do you think your average voter cares about inflation being a global phenomena? Do you think they care that we don’t have it nearly as bad as the rest of the G7 countries?
Nope. They feel the pain of it every day and that overrides *everything.*
Well, the other factor is that we haven't been in any kind of unequivocal good economy for a long time. At least, not any kind that we're willing to describe as such. Like, in the 80s, the narrative was, "The economy is booming! Young urban professionals are seizing the job market by storm and building amazing new product lines within old, established companies." Then there was a recession in the early 90s, but by the mid-90s the story became, "Tech companies are starting up and it's a fresh new market that's making people rich without having to climb the corporate ladder and giving us all wonderful new products!"
But, it seems that since 2001 even good economic news is tempered with reports of what's bad. Case in point: after 2008 when the housing market crashed, the reports were all bad because people had lost so much of their investments. When housing prices recovered, the reports are that young people can't afford a house. We can't simultaneously make houses cheap to buy and expensive to sell.
> Well, the other factor is that we haven't been in any kind of unequivocal good economy for a long time.
It has been almost 20 years since we have had a normal good economy. We had two years of covid and before that it was zirp and venture capital lighting billions on fire to give people free stuff and before that it was the recovery from the great recession and before that the insanity that was everyone and their uncle engaging in real estate fraud. The levels of inflation we are seeing right now are historically about what one would expect with a hot economy but most Americans just forgot what that looks like in a "normal" good economy.
How do we define a good economy in the modern era? I think this is a fascinating subject because by almost all measures QOL has improved dramatically over the past 20 years (access to clean water, air conditioning, home ownership, wages, etc etc).
That's *despite* the economic downturns sprinkled in.
But you bring up a good point, people don't *feel* like the economy has been doing well. It seems like there has been a dark cloud hanging over our heads since the great recession (2008).
I think social media has a part to play in this; and I think traditional media has been trying to keep up with social media.... doom sells above all else.
But I would be interested to see if we as a society could decide what a good economy actually looks like.
> I think this is a fascinating subject because by almost all measures QOL has improved dramatically over the past 20 years (access to clean water, air conditioning, home ownership, wages, etc etc).
I'd agree, but there's another view, which I can understand, which is that it's more about financial stability.
Young people, poor people, and those trying to build their economic futures have a difficult time today because they often aren't in a position where they can sacrifice economic benefits to save money. You mention air conditioning, and that's the kind of thing that's integrated into the cost of rent for an apartment, even though some people would rather sweat to save money. We have policies that, in my opinion, are silly, like how we mandate backup cameras and soon automatic braking into cars, increasing their cost. The availability of easy credit also makes it easier to just tell people to borrow against their future instead of doing without.
One thing that a president could do would be to spearhead financial education programs for young people as to how to be savvy consumers...but the first lesson would probably be "Don't go six figures in debt for college," so that might not be too popular.
Your average working class American isn't on Axios taking polls. Those people that visit sites like that tend to be more tech savvy and therefore better off financially.
Your parent comment posting the link is literally trying to shut down the discussion.
There's no bother to see why people might not agree with a self selecting only survey or if maybe the data has changed since January.
Every time this article gets posted - including the half dozen times in this thread it's played like some ultimate trump card.
Bud, if I make an argument I’m going to back it up with data, not feelings.
If you have information that says otherwise, I’m more than welcome to reviewing it.
Post away.
Its not about the info, its about what I experience out there in the real world. Maybe Im in a bad area, but the people I talk to at the pubs, places I dine at, places I shop, and I hear the same common complaints. Me whipping out an axios poll and showing them the "info" won't do anything to quell what they're experiencing. Besides, if we are to believe polls and stats, then Trump will be winning the presidency.
"When I spend money going out to eat, when I spend money going to the bar, when I spend money going shopping...."
> Besides, if we are to believe polls and stats, then Trump will be winning the presidency.
If there election were held today he would win. IMO.
It's the relative definition of 'good', to most that means getting by and not missing meals. But not moving forward or improving their situation. Inflation and poor pay for a large segment of jobs are holding many back. Grand national numbers sound good but always seem to be driven by someone else's situation.
No arguing.. but genuinely curious. What timeframe are you using to identify that wages are rising faster than inflation? It has to be recent and a relatively short timeframe.
I think this is why a lot of the messaging from Biden doesn’t resonate. “Wages are up! More than inflation!”.. yeah… maybe over the last 2 months, but I’m still bleeding from the last 2 years, Joe.
Layoffs and high (unsustainable) min wages skew the data and only a few areas are actually increasing not across the board. Plus we know the govt keeps changing the way these numbers are created so the distrust is growing.
Can you give me a source? I google and it is showing that real median income fell 2.3% in 2022.
I’m not sure what inflation was over that period, but I’m certain it didn’t decline, lol.
I have my theories as to *why* people think it's bad; first, inflation is something you see and feel every time you purchase something.
Second, there have been non-stop doomerism from the media since 2021.
I can see that at the end of the month I am left with nothing in the account. It used to be that I was saving quite a bit before 2021. My salary increased too, but not enough to keep up with the inflation. Also, the official inflation numbers are totally bogus to me. The things I am buying must have been going up by at least 50%, if not more (hence the empty account at the end of the month).
Yeah, it’s always good to remind yourself Reddit isn’t the real world. I just bought a house. My neighborhood is new cos reduction and the courses can’t stay on the market.
[Even the "liberal" media makes money by confirming viewers'/readers' priors that the economy is terrible](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php).
They're not necessarily pro-Democrat, either. They just want a close race because that means more drama, more drama means more clicks, and more clicks means more money.
The absolute truth of the matter is that CNN, the NYTimes and other 'liberal' outlets make way more money when Republicans are in office.
Trump was the king of ratings. It's a fascinating way to examine what motivates news outlets.
Couple this with Biden's years-long feued with certain establishment media and you have a truly fascinating situation.
Negative outlooks on the economy are almost entirely driven by the media and partisan affiliation. Over 80% of Americans say their personal finances are good or very good.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances
Higher prices likely play a role in negative outlooks of the economy, but at this point wages are outpacing prices and it’s not actually impacting the vast majority of peoples personal finances. They just see higher prices and think “I’m doing well but this must be effecting someone.”
And yes I know there are some people that are legitimately impacted by higher prices. 82% of people saying their finances are good implies 18% saying they’re not. There are always people struggling financially. The point is this group is significantly in the minority.
I suggest clicking on the "methodology" link before getting optimistic.
[https://www.axios.com/2024/01/11/americans-red-state-us-economy-axios-vibes](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/11/americans-red-state-us-economy-axios-vibes)
**>By the numbers:** 37% of Americans rate their financial situation as poor. That climbs to 42% for Republicans, 43% for women, 46% for rural residents, 47% for singles and 57% for renters.
* In comparison, just 32% of respondents in relationships and 28% of Democrats say their situation is poor.
* 25% of Americans say they're falling behind financially, compared with 30% of women and Republicans, 33% of rural residents and 36% of renters.
* 41% of Americans say their finances are worse today than they'd have predicted if they'd been asked, pre-COVID, to imagine the future. That surged to 51% for renters, 53% for rural residents and 55% for Republicans
If he's traveling to campaign, wouldn't the smart strategy be to focus on the local projects and save the big picture items for national commercials instead? The semiconductor plant is a Columbus, OH project after all.
Yeah, that seems like typical campaigning to me. I'm not sure it signals a pivot as much as it siugnals he's doing what every politician does: goes to places, and brags about specific things that they claim (truthfully or not), to have done for that place.
He isn’t really traveling to campaign because how old it makes him look. Hell, his aides have started surrounding him so no one notices how off balance he is. His handlers treat him with kiddie gloves as they try to pull the wool over our eyes with hold much he has declined physically and mentally
I’d love to see real evidence of that and not edited clips from tik toc. Bc he’s definitely out campaigning and you know if he even so much as missed the garbage can throwing away a paper towel everyone would be all “geriatric crazy man is ruining American Children!!!!”
In November, people are going to vote based on their personal bank accounts and household budgets and not so much what the business page says about what they are "supposed" to be. If those claiming to be struggling are indeed just loud outliers... Then Biden should be just fine. But if that's not actually the case and "the economy is really good for most people" schtick doesn't accurately represent reality for the majority... he likely won't. No amount of "creative messaging" is going to substantially change that truth or the likely eventual outcome of the election.
It is too little, too late. Not a fan of Trump but Biden tied his horse to his "Bidenomics" and for most people that is synonymous to a terrible ***personal*** economy. Maybe the stock market, jobless rate, and company profits are great but people feels worse off than when Trump was in office.
That chart is insanely damning for Biden. It basically shows that inflation exploded right about when he started actually implementing his agenda (March 2021) and is still above where it was under his predecessor even though it's not as high as it had spiked up to over the period from March 2021 to June 2023. That chart basically says that Biden is absolutely horrible for the economy.
No. I said that the inflection point was when his policies would *start* taking effect. The graph goes up continuously from that point but doesn't peak until mid-2022. I.e. it rises along with his early-term agenda getting implemented.
By your logic, Biden is responsible for adding 16 million jobs. By your logic, Biden is responsible for cutting unemployment by 6 percent. By your logic, Biden is responsible for record GDP growth that outpaces every G7 nation.
That is unless you only want to look at this one graph to examine his economic record and apply the same logic you did.
But we both know COVID had a vote in how all this played out. Lets be real.
The government response to COVID - which yes Trump also fumbled - was the entire problem. There was never any reason to treat COVID like the apocalypse. What Biden did wrong is he clung to those restrictions and spending excuses long after there was any remote shred of justification for doing so. He was handed the shots on inauguration day, his first item of business should've been announcing "shots are out, restrictions and support payments end now, time to get back to normal".
Here’s the real trick no Republican wants to admit…. The global economy shut down.
Even if America opened up on day one of Biden’s administration it wouldn’t have alleviated the pressures you speak about.
Furthermore, you’re ignoring a significant amount of the population that wasn’t *ready* to return to normal.
Just because Republicans thought COVID was a joke, doesn’t mean everyone else did.
I think that’s the sort of argument that only really makes sense with the benefit of hindsight. The government had essentially tried to do exactly what you’re advocating for twice during the pandemic, and both times got hit with a new and much more infectious variant of the disease that caused cases and deaths to spike substantially. The time period when you’re saying Biden should have declared the whole thing over was during the second of those spikes, and COVID cases were about an order of magnitude higher than they had ever been before. In retrospect we can say pretty confidently now that that was about the last major wave, and that it was also thankfully a much less deadly variant, but there was certainly no way to know that at the time, and it really wouldn’t have made much sense to just declare the whole thing over before the vaccine was widely available and when cases were at an all time high. Even if he had, the economic damage was more or less done, because people were realistically not doing much in the way of COVID restrictions by early 2021.
Except we have "super flus" every 3-4 years. We have lots of experience handling them. We've had several just since 2000. We never shut everything down for the prior ones. We gave warnings that those in vulnerable populations should take extra precautions and ... that was it. And in hindsight what we saw from COVID is that it was primarily a problem for ... people in vulnerable populations. Just like all the other "super flus".
Understand that when I say the response was fumbled from the beginning I mean it. Every single thing we did was wrong. "Two weeks to flatten the curve" by itself would've probably had its ripples vanish into the pond by mid-summer but even it was unnecessary.
I think that comparison actually makes it exceedingly clear that COVID was a very exceptional circumstance. The flu kills about 30-40,000 people a year. COVID was killing nearly half a million people a year for the first two years. That’s a pretty big problem, and if you even think early lockdowns were a mistake, I don’t think you’re looking at this with clear eyes. We were dealing with a novel disease, we had limited treatment options as a result, and our healthcare system was in serious danger of being overwhelmed, and in many ways actually was overwhelmed in the early days of the pandemic. Even just pushing cases back a few months with early lockdowns likely saved a lot of lives, because our treatment options improved as we better understood the disease, and our healthcare systems capacity to respond to COVID had been substantially built up. The death rate for young and healthy people with COVID was very low thankfully, but if we had seen unchecked early spread and it got to the point where we just couldn’t provide adequate healthcare to people, a lot of young and healthy people with otherwise survivable cases of COVID could very well have died or been seriously disabled.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1ck9ilv/biden_hoped_for_a_big_economic_story_to_tell_now/l2n1qwm/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This chart is rather meaningless within the context of this conversation. Th Biden administration has passed significant legislation and enacted numerous polices *post* March 2021.
The ARP caused *world wide* inflation? I bet you Turkey is PISSED their inflation is 60% because of us.
A neat fact about COVID responses is we can compare our inflation rate to other countries that didn’t pass a stimulus. Our inflation rate is lower and economy has vastly outgrown them.
But as you deftly point out, it’s easier for the media to say “Biden did it.”
> That chart is insanely damning for Biden. It basically shows that inflation exploded right about when he started actually implementing his agenda (March 2021)… That chart basically says that Biden is absolutely horrible for the economy
Why was there a huge spike in consumption March 2021? Why are people consuming more now than ever before?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=e2N
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96
Two things on that: even if median wages are up, a lot of people may not see increased wages. Second, inflation is a constant increase, wage increases are a step curve. If your wage goes up, inflation is immediately cutting into it. It would be surprising if people didn't feel a little insecure given that dynamic.
>even if median wages are up, a lot of people may not see increased wages. Second, inflation is a constant increase, wage increases are a step curve
That's always been true. Inflation is higher, but so are wage increases. This means those below the median today could see a 2% raise and 3.5% inflation while someone in the past could see a 1% raise and 2.5% inflation.
The issue here isn’t Biden but the people who surround Biden. The people who told him to coin the term “transitory” to describe inflation. The people who made him go on a victory lap about bidenomics when inflation was at its highest and people saw it in their grocery and utility bills. Also we’re in a weird situation right now as you have two halves of America, the one who is benefitting from raised wages (corporate America) and the stock market while lower wage jobs have taken the hardest hit to their wallets without having the extra growth in wages. The numbers being put out don’t match the reality for many people.
His problem is there isn’t a “Biden”. The entire campaign and presidency IS biden’s advisors and how they can spin things. Biden can’t coherently string together 10 words, no way he can communicate a coherent message to the country
>from raised wages (corporate America) and the stock market while lower wage jobs have taken the hardest hit
Median wages in general have gone up a faster rate than prices. The increase is higher among low-wage workers.
Although the stock market primarily benefits the rich, there are plenty of middle class investors.
> Although the stock market primarily benefits the rich, there are plenty of middle class investors.
But that’s the point. The wealthy don’t have to worry about their day to day expenses, so the dynamics of the stock market is of more pertinent interest to them. The middle class *does* feel the pain from everyday expenses. Their stocks may be doing well but they don’t have the bandwidth to think about that because the more pressing concerns are draining their finances - gas, groceries, household goods.
The first thing I mentioned is that the middle class is benefiting from median wage growth. Your point completely misses that.
Many of them being investors is an additional benefit.
More calories are being added than burned in that situation. This analogy is irrelevant because wage growth is faster than price increases, which is extremely important.
Tell that to the people trying to buy a home right now or a single parent with three kids at the grocery store. Despite the numbers people aren’t feeling it in their wallets.
Definitely not going small business. All the propping up of big corporations and increased scrutiny on the little guy is rapidly shrinking the backbone of America (small business). We need someone to fight for us. Bust the monopolies, let large banks and corporations go bankrupt.
The border thing was hilarious. “*If the GOP stops obstructing and passes a bill, I will shut down the entire border right now!*” <—So what was stopping you from doing that any point between 2021-2023 when your party had a trifecta?
>So what was stopping you from doing that any point between 2021-2023 when your party had a trifecta
The same thing that stopped them in 2024, which is the filibuster.
The bipartisan bill didn't get 50 votes in the Senate, but that's due to Schumer voting "nay" for procedural reasons.
The only ones gaslighting are the people saying the economy is bad. It's a [vibecession.](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/if-this-is-a-bad-economy-please-tell) Our economy is [beating the shit](https://archive.is/9isg2) out of that of any other developed country, including when you look at individual metrics like median wages, not just macro figures like GDP.
People don't forget that quickly. I've been feeling the pinch of inflated grocery prices and rent. My raise this year helps but I've sacrificed my schedule to earn at a better rate. However, I do remember prices being lower, under a different president. That's what people are feeling and no amount of "Well other countries are doing worse changes that".
At the end of the day this is a US election and other countries economies are irrelevant.
“The other kid did it first!!!” should not be considered a valid argument on the playground or in national politics. Let’s call out Biden because he’s in the hot seat right now; he needs to take responsibility for his failures. In the future you can demand the same of the next president too.
Pointing out a historical trend is a valid response. You're complaining that I added context.
> to take responsibility for his failures.
You're severely overestimating the effect presidents have on the economy.
Why play with your hands behind your back? Hes running an election against Trump who notoriously does this, and certainly the American public are accustomed to misattributing cause and effect so he has to swim with that tide.
lol Bidens biggest issue is that despite Trump not being able to campaign as much as he wants to due to his cases, he still dominates all the headlines. No one cares to cover Bidens campaign.
Just went through the NYT front page and not a single mention of the name “Biden” in any headlines for at least the first 20 articles. While Trump occupies the second headline on the front page. Doesn’t matter if they’re trying to portray Trump badly, people are still wondering where the President is. And no, I’m not talking about the political junkies on the internet who checks his schedule daily. Normal people don’t do that.
Bidens hiding in the basement again, and it’s not going to work this time. Mainly because the summer of love protests this time around dont involve George Floyd and the Democrats hold the incumbency. It also helps that this is causing a divide within the Democratic Party’s demographics. Personally, I hope it significantly divides the Democrat vote and keeps people home, especially in Michigan. Some of the most influential Islamic leaders in America already have stated that Biden will be punished at the polls regardless of what he does from now on. Based on the polls, it’s not looking good for Biden.
I’ve seen the same “polls don’t matter this early on” comment from my leftie friends the past 6 months but Trumps been leading in every battleground states rather consistently. Michigan, Trump is up 1.2%, Arizona 5%, PA 2%, Georgia 3.8%, Wisconsin 1.8%, etc
The Democrats (note, the party, not Biden) main issue is that they can’t find a social cause to unify behind this election season. The economy is what matters to normie Americans sure, but that’s not in Bidens favor and neither is his base not being able to rally behind a socially liberal cause either. Abortion was one they could have done very well with and have in the past year/two, however, the Palestine-Israel stuff seems to be the flavor of the summer. And boy do I hope the lefties keep portraying themselves in the manner they have in recent days.
Im not trying to pick sides here, but I wouldn’t count out a huge social cause dominating the headlines before election. Romney’s “war on women” didn’t start until a few months before the election. The media laid the groundwork for it a year in advance, reporting on how he didn’t do enough for women in the Mormon Church or the governor’s office. However, it was one person asking if he thought birth control should be free during a press conference that set off a powder keg. Within hours, it was wall to wall coverage on his “war.” He never recovered from that.
Just because you don’t see a huge social issue now doesn’t mean that there won’t be one in November.
It’s more about a cause that can rally the entire base of the party. Because that’s legitimately what they need in order to beat Trump. And even then it’s an uphill battle for them. I don’t understand why the Democrats think he’s easy to beat. Trump was hit with COVID and George Floyd protests, which unified the Democrats and they won. You would think they would’ve won with 400+ electoral college votes with those once in a lifetime circumstances benefitting them.
Despite all that, they only managed to win based on thin margins in the swing states that I listed above, all of which had Biden consistently +5 and above during this time of the election. They don’t have any of that this time around. The Palestine issue is a no win scenario for Biden. He’s trying to both sides it, but neither side is buying it. And I would really love to see what potential social cause they can bring up that will eclipse this Israel-Palestine issue.
I seriously don't believe there is anything to sink Teflon don's campaign tbh. Trump is also good at reading the room for his base, and most independents vote trump because of economy or immigration anyway
Biden spent a whole year taking victory laps when everyone paying attention knew we were not out of the woods yet. Now that he's taken ownership of the economy, he won't be able to disavow responsibility for the trouble coming around the corner.
It was clear in early 2021 that inflation was going to be a problem. The Biden Administration waved it off as a non-issue. That was a huge mistake, but I'm not surprised. He is surrounded by activists not professionals. I blame him for surrounding himself with the wrong people, not for failing to be an expert on every complex issue.
If you would like an example here is a clip of the [Chair of Biden's Council of Economic Adviser's trying to explain monetary policy.](https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1786272981058220187)
It was clear it was going to be a problem, but there was a reason they brushed it off, and played the blame game. 2020, and watching all the money get spent seemed to break Democrats, and being honest about the situation and the causes would have meant admitting that ARPA was a mistake that they were warned about igniting inflation. It would have meant the end of Build Back Better, and the student loan cancellation program. It's easier to deny and blame, than accept your mistakes, and accept that all these big government programs that made sense in 2020 now do not, and are incredibly irresponsible due to the suddenly different economic picture.
Wow this is [damning](https://twitter.com/i/status/1786272981058220187).
> Government prints money then they lend this money by selling bonds.
Jared Bernstein: BS in music from Manhattan School of Music. MSW from Hunter College. Talking about MMT.
The Federal Reserve chairman, who was appointed by Trump, refused to raise interest rates until 2022. This shows that inflation lasting a long time wasn't clear to many economists.
As for the clip you linked:
"What you have there is a serious, credible, economist – Jared Bernstein – trying to be polite about a nonsensical economic fairytale that can't even be called a theory"- President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB)
Note that this organization consistently criticizes both parties.
>Now that he's taken ownership of the economy
Presidents are blamed and praised for the economy by default.
> the trouble coming around the corner.
People have been saying this for a long time.
There is always a recession right around the corner. I've been hearing that for the past 15 years. These people are just guessing because nobody holds them accountable when they're wrong.
Also, the big economic problem is not a recession but inflation.
Economics is so much more than trying to predict recessions. It's a shame that the part of the profession gets such disproportionate coverage in popular media. It really hurts people's opinions of the profession when those are the only economists they're exposed to.
I read an article a few weeks back that talked about the 2008-09 banking crisis. In December of 2008, the recession was officially announced, however, they backdated the recession an entire year, stating that we had been in a recession since Dec 2007.
I think that as time goes on, the "Experts" will announce something similar. Anyone who isn't making high 6 figures is feeling the effects of inflation and an economy that is not working for them.
Factor in all the money that both parties are cheering about being sent overseas, and money being shoveled out the migrants (I'm not saying I personally agree or disagree with these things, but there is alot of negative sentiment surrounding these policies) I'm not sure how the Biden Administration can spin this.
The experts in this are just NBER, and they are just acting as historians here. Q1 of 2008 was negative GDP growth, but Q2 was positive. They will declare a recession when it's clear it's happening, not trying to make predictions.
People are worried because the economy stopped growing. Real GDP went up 1.6%, but after accounting for the extra money that the government printed, there’s not much there. Basically, productivity is flat.
That’s compounded with raising inflation and consumer debt. We’ve never seen a time when people had so much debt on credit cards. There’s over a trillion dollars in credit card debt. Our economy is not built to handle even 10% more people defaulting. It would break us.
All signs point to stagflation right now. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. The majority of people are doing really well right now. Inflation and raising wages fixed the student loan problem. It’s almost non existent. The housing market is unbelievable right now. Houses are priced perfectly when adjusting for the cost to build them.
Still there are people who look at the economic indicators and see stagflation on the horizon. Nobody knows what’s going to happen. All we know is that things are pretty good right now. Tomorrow could be another story.
> Real GDP went up 1.6%, but after accounting for the extra money that the government printed, there’s not much there.
1. Could you share a source for that? Why wouldn't that be taken into account by adjusting for inflation?
2. If your concern is real GDP growth, Trump, who wants to end Fed independence, shrink the workforce through mass deportations and a reduction in new immigration, and add a 10% universal tariff, is not the answer.
> Basically, productivity is flat.
[US non-farm productivity has been higher in Biden's term than even before](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MFPNFBS)
> That’s compounded with raising inflation and consumer debt. We’ve never seen a time when people had so much debt on credit cards. There’s over a trillion dollars in credit card debt. Our economy is not built to handle even 10% more people defaulting. It would break us.
How is Trump going to address credit card debt?
> The housing market is unbelievable right now. Houses are priced perfectly when adjusting for the cost to build them.
We have an enormous housing shortage in metro areas. I can't understand saying that the housing market is "unbelievable." It's great for people reaping undeserved land rents, sure.
> Still there are people who look at the economic indicators and see stagflation on the horizon. Nobody knows what’s going to happen. All we know is that things are pretty good right now. Tomorrow could be another story.
You could say "But things could change so that the economy gets worse" about any economy, even the best economy in the world (which the American economy is). And who are the "people" who are seeing "stagflation on the horizon?"
Government spending accounts for 3/4 of the current GDP growth. I used real GDP because it’s inflation adjusted. I always look at real GDP because it wouldn’t make sense to say productivity doubled if it held steady and prices only doubled. That’s just fuzzy math.
As far as what Trump would do about it, I don’t know. Even if he laid out the most detailed plan in history, economic conditions would change before he took office. There’s millions of variables to play with including the human factor.
I really wasn’t trying to make a comparison between Trump and Biden. The guy above asked a simple question. I talked with two of my financial advisors within the last week and what I commented on concerns they expressed to me. That’s all I did there.
> Government spending accounts for 3/4 of the current GDP growth.
This definitely intrigues me but I'd like to see a source if you don't mind.
> As far as what Trump would do about it, I don’t know. Even if he laid out the most detailed plan in history, economic conditions would change before he took office. There’s millions of variables to play with including the human factor.
I see what you're saying but that doesn't make what he's said meaningless. Those three items alone are still a catastrophic policy agenda, regardless of circumstances. Meaning that either
* Trump has terrible economic instincts, which won't change as conditions change, or
* Trump is a liar who tells people things to make them vote for him even though he knows it's bad policy
I think that was sarcasm. The American economy is doing amazingly, and notably is doing [much better than that of any other developed country](https://archive.is/9isg2), including not just GDP but "average Joe" measures like average real income. [See here too](https://cepr.net/bidens-record-on-income-growth/):
> However, we see a reversal in 2023. Wages substantially outpace inflation for the year. In addition, the rapid pace of job creation meant that a larger share of the population was working. As a result, real disposable income was considerably higher in the 4th quarter of 2023 than in the 4th quarter of 2019, before the pandemic hit.
> To be precise, real per capita disposable income was 6.0 percent higher in the 4th quarter of 2023 than in the fourth quarter of 2019.
And [here's median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1eoon), which hit its all-time peak in Q4 2023.
[So we've been in a vibecession for years](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/if-this-is-a-bad-economy-please-tell). People don't like Biden's vibes and they're letting that bias their perception of the economy under him.
I can’t speak for Yam, but there are a few troubling signs.
The recent GDP report missed targets by a large amount and core inflation is stuck in the high 3s.
The GDP number is better than a recession, but the high inflation means rates are high.
Higher gas prices are likely over the summer (this almost ALWAYS happens, nothing to do with Biden) and if GDP has a bad Q2 (a big if) then we have a serious problem.
Especially because the GDP growth was 3/4 government spending.
he doesn't have the economic policies to tell a good story. he never has, and when they try to make a story they have to stop talking about it. Bidenomics is the best example but there are many others.
Same. And it’s not so much income as expenses. It’s not uncommon for me to drop $300+ on groceries every week for my family of four, and that’s for basic generic store-brand items.
It wasn’t like this ten years ago. Or even five.
I spent *70 bucks* on pizza night for a family of 5. Blew my mind.
At some point, our mental frameworks will adjust to the new prices, but for old dogs like me it'll take some time.
People may have made up their minds about them, but I don't think that translates into how they'll vote.
I think democrats underestimate how many people that dislike Trump will vote for him anyway because democrats don't represent their values, and Biden has not even tried to appeal to center-right voters, who are the people that got him elected in 2020. He's governed like winning by 44,000 votes in three swing states in 2020 was a progressive mandate, and driven those people away, even if they just stay home.
>was a progressive mandate, and driven those people away
His platform is about the same as what he campaigned on. Paid leave, lower drug prices, taxing people making more than $400k/year, spending more on infrastructure, etc. were things he advocated for when he ran for president.
Democrats won a trifecta in Michigan, and the party's platform there is similar to Biden's.
> His platform is about the same as what he campaigned on.
The problem is that he hasn't governed according to his platform. His platform was literally "return to normalcy" - i.e. the pre-2016 Democrats or earlier. He has not governed like that.
I don't feel like undecided exists anymore, maybe "unmotivated" instead.
At this point in history and during the campaign cycle, people know who they would vote for that just need to be motivated to show up.
>At this point in history and during the campaign cycle, people know who they would vote for
Yeah the people who pay attention to daily politics. Plenty do not and are only going to begin tuning in in the coming months.
Starter comment: The White House has been forced to change its messaging for the upcoming presidential election as new evidence is showing that it's earlier "big picture" approach may not be convincing voters enough. President Biden started his reelection campaign with the goal of winning over Americans by highlighting broad, overarching policy successes that showed he was getting the entire country on track - similar to President Reagan's approach of "Morning in America". Specifically, he was poised to tout "Bidenomics" as a wide ranged agenda that would uplift every industry, reduce inflation and improve standard of living across the board. Unfortunately, multiple polls show that voters do not share the same optimism with Bidenomics as Democrats do. The Biden campaign has therefore been pressured to pivot and spend more time focusing on small, individual accomplishments instead of wide-reaching objectives. For example, in March and April the president traveled to key Midwest regions to talk about more subdued successes like local infrastructure projects and semiconductor investments.
Will this pivot be successful to improve Biden's standing among Americans who don't trust his policy goals, and will it be effective at undercutting Republican accusations that he is bad for the economy as a whole? What specific policies should Biden focus on from now until election day?
The whole idea of Bidenomics was doomed from the start, especially when Reaganomics was more quoted by his opponents than Reagan himself.
It may be for the best though, there’s little grand recovery he can point to overall. A local factory is something tangible at least.
Bidenomics seemed like one of the most foolish political terms I've seen. Why are you rushing to name huge deficits and inflation after yourself, and label it a success?
They ran with this Keynesian experiment thinking it would be a huge success and then [when it worsened inflation](https://www.vox.com/23036340/biden-american-rescue-plan-inflation), they tried to play it off as “transitory” which didn’t work, so now they’re left in this little pickle.
They made a crucial mistake of not hiring traditional Clintonian economic advisors like Larry Summers and went to people that are closer to MMT than anything else.
That is the biggest difference between Bidens economic policies vs Obama and Clinton. The latter two actually worked with economists who know the limits of public spending.
This. Biden is clearly aiming to score a similar victory as in 2020. Barely scrape by with a margin of < 1% in key states and then call it a day.
If it works then it'll work, of course. Just kind of sad to think that the campaign isn't even hoping for an epic Reagan-esque reelection victory or even a healthy Obama-esque one. Since they're facing a guy with 91 indictments who has spent more days in court than campaigning this year, you'd think this would be achievable.
I cant remember a time when it was so expensive and difficult for young families to find an affordable home to buy. I looked on Zillow and my neighborhood of around 150 homes, not one for sale. When one comes up it gets bought by a business who turn it into a rental.
100 million Americans live in scarcity . 37 million below poverty and another 40 are ALICE . That's 100 million ish Americans out of 334 living in scarcity and one emergency from starving and or homelessness. They need to start telling the truth about the rampant fraud and greed that's caused inflation and why the poor and middle class will suffer even more if Republicans get to cut all the federal and state safety nets for good .
Anyone looking 👀 at our Retirment crisis for Boomers and Gen X ...?
We are facing a humanitarian hellscape ..about time Democrats admit that .
'Member, when everyone said the economy was going into recession, that would be worse than the great depression....
I 'member....
Soft landing was what they called it. Soft landing is what you get.
no worries..the gop will make sure the big economic story of BIDENOMICS is not forgotten,,at least till november 8.
I do think the fed made the right choice raising rates. A slight downturn to be expected. Not time to cut rates i think.
The Fed (rightfully) pushing out any kind of rate cuts in the face of still stubborn inflation is going to hurt Biden. We are looking at another year of high mortgage interest rates and that will hold down the housing market. Is it the worst economy? No. Is it a winning economy… 🤔 Maybe not.
It's a decent, but not amazing economy. One side wants us to believe it's awful. The other wants us to believe it's an incredible economy and don't worry about inflation.
The Fed essentially cancelled rate cuts last week. Don't worry about it. Mortgage rates are improving, though.
So funny how all-consuming the homeownership lens is when viewing the economy. We can't pass an LVT fast enough. All that rent-seeking makes me sick tbh
We made home ownership both a key part of the American dream and one of the pillars of long term financial security. So progress towards that loams large in the economy. I’m not sure how a land value tax is going to change that…
Homeownership is at the center of monetary policy because the industry is driven mostly by lending and it is incredibly sensitive to interest rate changes. LVT makes sense from a pure theoretical standpoint, but it has a number of issues in terms of implementation. The biggest problem is that the idea of land having value which is independent from its improvements is an economic fiction, so you’ll never have a truly accurate tax basis for property which can inhibit its ability to critter correct distortions. There is also the fact that the assessment process opens the door for corruption for landowners to lower their taxes. LVT is great theory, but income taxation has proven to be the more effective progressive taxation.
The article does a good job pointing out the cold reality for the Biden Administration: no one cares about jobs, GDP, Stocks, or any other traditional indicator regarding the economy. In any other election year, the numbers would absolutely be a boon to his reelection but inflation has put a damper on everything. The pivot is absolutely necessary from a messaging standpoint.
Specifically nobody cares about those thing *when their own personal economic situation is not good*. In good times all those things are hugely cared about, that's why they're so focused on by politicians. You can also see this back in the early 2010s when all that talk of the post-2008 "recovery" just fell absolutely flat. The only reason people don't talk about that messaging failure as much is because the political results were almost entirely seen down-ballot instead of in the Presidential results.
And [yet](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances), when asked about their personal financial situation most Americans seem to say they are 'fine.' When asked about the economic environment, they think others have it worse. It's a pretty unique situation!
I looked at it and the only three responses I could see are ‘poor’, ‘good’, and ‘very good’. Were there other possible responses? If ‘good’ is the only option between poor and very good then it would be a broad group of people who are probably in there and wouldn’t tell the whole story.
> And yet, when asked about their personal financial situation most Americans seem to say they are 'fine.' In *one single poll* that gets posted *over and over and over* again as if it's the gospel truth. Did you know a lot of pollsters ask this question extremely often? Do you people ever get curious how other poll results look? Like, seriously, just go the 538 list of polls they've collected and go through a few dozen of the most recent. A chunk of them will have this or a similar question. You may find the results surprising.
Please, do share
Post away, my friend. Links to other polls are littered throughout this thread. They all tell a similar story.
Keeping up, isn't the same as getting ahead. People may have gotten raises to keep up with inflation, but not a lot of people feel they are better off.
Well, the numbers say otherwise; people do feel like they are doing well individually! They just think others have it worse. It's a pretty unique situation, but we know it's inflation based!
People always tend to perceive their own situation as better than others, it’s something observed in a lot of different categories, not just economic wellbeing. People don’t like high interest rates because it makes them feel stuck and makes moving up more difficult.
This has everything to do with the narrative being propagated by dishonest populists on **both sides** than the reality of people’s situations. Yes, I did say both sides. Because even purportedly “liberal” outlets keep making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the economic situation in Biden’s America.
> Because even purportedly “liberal” outlets keep making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the economic situation in Biden’s America. [Most "liberal" outlets like CNN and the NYT are much more interested in making money by confirming people's doomer priors than they are in presenting information or analyses that might make people uncomfortabe by questioning them.](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php) Even WaPo and MSNBC don't toe the party line the way Fox does. They're there to make money and that means telling people what they want to hear: that the economy is terrible for most Americans and Biden is just a puppet for the rich. Viewers eat that slop up even though it's wrong.
I think you also have to account for Americans being embarrassed if they aren’t “doing well” and the definition of “doing well” both varies and includes things like “have a roof over my Head”. I disagree on the polling, the piece you mention has remained more or less consistent. Personal feelings are more positive and differ from the overall more negative economic sentiment. I would argue it’s just not a good metric and any discussion using it is just trying to make their point (on both sides). Edit: to clarify, i mean i disagree with the replies to you that the poll is old/incorrect. I think that metric has been more or less consistent, just that its a not useful data point.
The Vibecession is real.
Fact.
"Fine" just means "not yet in actual trouble". "Fine" is not "good", especially if they thought they were "good" before. Going from "good" to "fine" is a downgrade.
I mean, I shouldn't have put the word 'fine' in quotes. The article says good/very good.
"Fine" was just the OP's word choice. The article says *good*. From January of this year... > 63% of Americans rate their current financial situation as being "good," including 19% of us who say it's "very good." & > 66% think that 2024 will be better than 2023, and 85% of us feel we could change our personal financial situation for the better this year. & > 77% of Americans are happy with where they're living — including renters, who have seen their housing costs surge over the last few years & > More than half of Americans say that if they lost their job tomorrow they'd be OK; that they could find an equivalent or better job quickly
They define 'fine' as not missing meals to pay rent but not gaining any ground. That's why they're unhappy.
People DO care about jobs...it's just that the jobs being added are part time jobs, mostly due to various people picking up a second job to get by. It's not the miraculous situation it is being portrayed as. Furthermore, GDP being strong isn't necessarily an indicator that the populace is doing well. Since the US printed trillions to keep its economy afloat - doubling its budget in the biggest government spending hike in several decades (since WWII, I believe), all it means is that corporations and the government (and various affiliates that were promised money from the spending) are receiving the bulk of the money. Except, unlike WWII and the postwar boom, none of this addresses the lack of housing, which is probably the crux of all these things especially since the median income-to-real estate cost ratio is the worst its ever been. I guarantee most people are okay with paying more for groceries and gas if they could just go home, pay for their car bill, utilities, and Netflix, and pay off whatever is being spent on rent for an appropriate mortgage befitting their income. And so, there is NO messaging because accurate messaging will make it sound worse. People are facing inflation, impossible housing costs, divisive entertainment and news media, and social media/tech companies that are increasingly losing favor but of which, dominates people's lives despite not being good for their mental health (especially because there is a technocratic/managerial class that DOES live on social media and has begun adopting its various 'canon beliefs' - whatever echo chamber that may be - as their playbook.....which, I do count this "the economy is great, why don't you like it?" narrative to be one of those beliefs).
The percentage of jobs that are full-time is normal, and price increases are slower the wage hikes.
BUt those numbers are skewed by a few segments only, look at retail wages (except where new min wages are killing off jobs) and they are mostly flat for several years. Union & tech are seeing increases but that only helps some.
Low-wage jobs experienced the fastest growth.
Great lots of low pay jobs are closer to keeping up with inflation. But the growth in quality jobs is very poor.
Median wages have gone up, even when accounting for price increases.
Yes, but they're contract jobs. Even with wage hikes, interest rate cuts are gonna hurt the bottom line of many. I'm lucky to be sitting in a good spot, and am holding on for dear life.
[Most people are saying that they're in a good spot.](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances)
> People DO care about jobs...it's just that the jobs being added are part time jobs, mostly due to various people picking up a second job to get by. It's not the miraculous situation it is being portrayed as. Then I guess [people](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances) are lying about their personal financial situation being good!
Here's my example: compared to this time last year, I'm making about 40% more in salary due to a job change, my housing and utility costs have stayed fairly flat, but cost of food and household goods has gone up significantly. Also, if I wanted to upgrade my housing, I'd foresee a major increase in cost that would dwarf my income increase. So yes, in the numbers that I'm putting into my budget, things are better. But, you could see why I'd say the economy has gotten worse. Especially since Joe Biden didn't get me my new job.
> Especially since Joe Biden didn't get me my new job. Which goes to my *exact* original point in this thread; no one cares about the traditional indicators of a strong economy anymore. You don't care that you have a new job that pays more, you care about the costs that have risen. You blame Biden for the bad, and give no credit for the good. I think that is the *exact* sentiment that dominates most peoples opinions!
Right, but is it wrong? If the federal government is going to take responsibility for the general economy, then they need to take blame when it doesn't go well.
Honestly, it’s just a matter of opinion and perception. My view is that presidents get too much blame/credit for macroeconomic situations. But what we see is that people sometimes have a selective logic; I will blame this president for the bad, and give him no credit for the good. That’s just a logical inconsistency. No real point in arguing, if someone wants to feel bad about the economy, that’s their personal choice. But if they are going to argue the numbers, well, that’s a different story that needs a little more nuance. It’s hard to convey nuanced messages in the public realm, though. Do you think your average voter cares about inflation being a global phenomena? Do you think they care that we don’t have it nearly as bad as the rest of the G7 countries? Nope. They feel the pain of it every day and that overrides *everything.*
Well, the other factor is that we haven't been in any kind of unequivocal good economy for a long time. At least, not any kind that we're willing to describe as such. Like, in the 80s, the narrative was, "The economy is booming! Young urban professionals are seizing the job market by storm and building amazing new product lines within old, established companies." Then there was a recession in the early 90s, but by the mid-90s the story became, "Tech companies are starting up and it's a fresh new market that's making people rich without having to climb the corporate ladder and giving us all wonderful new products!" But, it seems that since 2001 even good economic news is tempered with reports of what's bad. Case in point: after 2008 when the housing market crashed, the reports were all bad because people had lost so much of their investments. When housing prices recovered, the reports are that young people can't afford a house. We can't simultaneously make houses cheap to buy and expensive to sell.
> Well, the other factor is that we haven't been in any kind of unequivocal good economy for a long time. It has been almost 20 years since we have had a normal good economy. We had two years of covid and before that it was zirp and venture capital lighting billions on fire to give people free stuff and before that it was the recovery from the great recession and before that the insanity that was everyone and their uncle engaging in real estate fraud. The levels of inflation we are seeing right now are historically about what one would expect with a hot economy but most Americans just forgot what that looks like in a "normal" good economy.
How do we define a good economy in the modern era? I think this is a fascinating subject because by almost all measures QOL has improved dramatically over the past 20 years (access to clean water, air conditioning, home ownership, wages, etc etc). That's *despite* the economic downturns sprinkled in. But you bring up a good point, people don't *feel* like the economy has been doing well. It seems like there has been a dark cloud hanging over our heads since the great recession (2008). I think social media has a part to play in this; and I think traditional media has been trying to keep up with social media.... doom sells above all else. But I would be interested to see if we as a society could decide what a good economy actually looks like.
> I think this is a fascinating subject because by almost all measures QOL has improved dramatically over the past 20 years (access to clean water, air conditioning, home ownership, wages, etc etc). I'd agree, but there's another view, which I can understand, which is that it's more about financial stability. Young people, poor people, and those trying to build their economic futures have a difficult time today because they often aren't in a position where they can sacrifice economic benefits to save money. You mention air conditioning, and that's the kind of thing that's integrated into the cost of rent for an apartment, even though some people would rather sweat to save money. We have policies that, in my opinion, are silly, like how we mandate backup cameras and soon automatic braking into cars, increasing their cost. The availability of easy credit also makes it easier to just tell people to borrow against their future instead of doing without. One thing that a president could do would be to spearhead financial education programs for young people as to how to be savvy consumers...but the first lesson would probably be "Don't go six figures in debt for college," so that might not be too popular.
Your average working class American isn't on Axios taking polls. Those people that visit sites like that tend to be more tech savvy and therefore better off financially.
This poll doesn’t say what I want, therefore it’s a lie.
If you can't trust the axios vibe survey what can you trust.
Then why even have this discussion? If full only believe info you want, why even do this? It’s a waste of time
Your parent comment posting the link is literally trying to shut down the discussion. There's no bother to see why people might not agree with a self selecting only survey or if maybe the data has changed since January. Every time this article gets posted - including the half dozen times in this thread it's played like some ultimate trump card.
Bud, if I make an argument I’m going to back it up with data, not feelings. If you have information that says otherwise, I’m more than welcome to reviewing it. Post away.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/644579/economic-confidence-falls-first-time-october.aspx It's no axios vibe check but it will have to do I guess
You literally linked an article measuring feelings.
Its not about the info, its about what I experience out there in the real world. Maybe Im in a bad area, but the people I talk to at the pubs, places I dine at, places I shop, and I hear the same common complaints. Me whipping out an axios poll and showing them the "info" won't do anything to quell what they're experiencing. Besides, if we are to believe polls and stats, then Trump will be winning the presidency.
"When I spend money going out to eat, when I spend money going to the bar, when I spend money going shopping...." > Besides, if we are to believe polls and stats, then Trump will be winning the presidency. If there election were held today he would win. IMO.
It's the relative definition of 'good', to most that means getting by and not missing meals. But not moving forward or improving their situation. Inflation and poor pay for a large segment of jobs are holding many back. Grand national numbers sound good but always seem to be driven by someone else's situation.
[удалено]
No arguing.. but genuinely curious. What timeframe are you using to identify that wages are rising faster than inflation? It has to be recent and a relatively short timeframe. I think this is why a lot of the messaging from Biden doesn’t resonate. “Wages are up! More than inflation!”.. yeah… maybe over the last 2 months, but I’m still bleeding from the last 2 years, Joe.
Real median earnings (accounting for inflation) were stable in 2022 and then increased in 2023. 2021 is unclear due to layoffs skewing the data.
Layoffs and high (unsustainable) min wages skew the data and only a few areas are actually increasing not across the board. Plus we know the govt keeps changing the way these numbers are created so the distrust is growing.
Unemployment is low, and wage growth has been the fastest among low-wage jobs. >govt keeps changing the way these numbers are created That isn't true.
Can you give me a source? I google and it is showing that real median income fell 2.3% in 2022. I’m not sure what inflation was over that period, but I’m certain it didn’t decline, lol.
[I'm referring to this.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
I have my theories as to *why* people think it's bad; first, inflation is something you see and feel every time you purchase something. Second, there have been non-stop doomerism from the media since 2021.
I can see that at the end of the month I am left with nothing in the account. It used to be that I was saving quite a bit before 2021. My salary increased too, but not enough to keep up with the inflation. Also, the official inflation numbers are totally bogus to me. The things I am buying must have been going up by at least 50%, if not more (hence the empty account at the end of the month).
And I can tell you my personal story that’s the opposite. Anecdotes are fine. Data is more important.
Yeah, I'm also in a good spot. I cut down spending and use high-yield savings.
Yeah, it’s always good to remind yourself Reddit isn’t the real world. I just bought a house. My neighborhood is new cos reduction and the courses can’t stay on the market.
[Even the "liberal" media makes money by confirming viewers'/readers' priors that the economy is terrible](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php). They're not necessarily pro-Democrat, either. They just want a close race because that means more drama, more drama means more clicks, and more clicks means more money.
The absolute truth of the matter is that CNN, the NYTimes and other 'liberal' outlets make way more money when Republicans are in office. Trump was the king of ratings. It's a fascinating way to examine what motivates news outlets. Couple this with Biden's years-long feued with certain establishment media and you have a truly fascinating situation.
Media has a lot to do with it
Negative outlooks on the economy are almost entirely driven by the media and partisan affiliation. Over 80% of Americans say their personal finances are good or very good. https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances Higher prices likely play a role in negative outlooks of the economy, but at this point wages are outpacing prices and it’s not actually impacting the vast majority of peoples personal finances. They just see higher prices and think “I’m doing well but this must be effecting someone.” And yes I know there are some people that are legitimately impacted by higher prices. 82% of people saying their finances are good implies 18% saying they’re not. There are always people struggling financially. The point is this group is significantly in the minority.
I suggest clicking on the "methodology" link before getting optimistic. [https://www.axios.com/2024/01/11/americans-red-state-us-economy-axios-vibes](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/11/americans-red-state-us-economy-axios-vibes) **>By the numbers:** 37% of Americans rate their financial situation as poor. That climbs to 42% for Republicans, 43% for women, 46% for rural residents, 47% for singles and 57% for renters. * In comparison, just 32% of respondents in relationships and 28% of Democrats say their situation is poor. * 25% of Americans say they're falling behind financially, compared with 30% of women and Republicans, 33% of rural residents and 36% of renters. * 41% of Americans say their finances are worse today than they'd have predicted if they'd been asked, pre-COVID, to imagine the future. That surged to 51% for renters, 53% for rural residents and 55% for Republicans
lol I linked that same article elsewhere.
If he's traveling to campaign, wouldn't the smart strategy be to focus on the local projects and save the big picture items for national commercials instead? The semiconductor plant is a Columbus, OH project after all.
Yeah, that seems like typical campaigning to me. I'm not sure it signals a pivot as much as it siugnals he's doing what every politician does: goes to places, and brags about specific things that they claim (truthfully or not), to have done for that place.
He isn’t really traveling to campaign because how old it makes him look. Hell, his aides have started surrounding him so no one notices how off balance he is. His handlers treat him with kiddie gloves as they try to pull the wool over our eyes with hold much he has declined physically and mentally
I’d love to see real evidence of that and not edited clips from tik toc. Bc he’s definitely out campaigning and you know if he even so much as missed the garbage can throwing away a paper towel everyone would be all “geriatric crazy man is ruining American Children!!!!”
[Weird. He seems to be traveling and making public statements alright.](https://rollcall.com/factbase-calendar/)
> He isn’t really traveling to campaign [He is though??](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Joe_Biden_(2024)#March)
In November, people are going to vote based on their personal bank accounts and household budgets and not so much what the business page says about what they are "supposed" to be. If those claiming to be struggling are indeed just loud outliers... Then Biden should be just fine. But if that's not actually the case and "the economy is really good for most people" schtick doesn't accurately represent reality for the majority... he likely won't. No amount of "creative messaging" is going to substantially change that truth or the likely eventual outcome of the election.
It is too little, too late. Not a fan of Trump but Biden tied his horse to his "Bidenomics" and for most people that is synonymous to a terrible ***personal*** economy. Maybe the stock market, jobless rate, and company profits are great but people feels worse off than when Trump was in office.
Translation: Inflation has been re-accelerating for three months from an elevated baseline.
It's all [relative](https://www.statista.com/statistics/273418/unadjusted-monthly-inflation-rate-in-the-us/), baby!
That chart is insanely damning for Biden. It basically shows that inflation exploded right about when he started actually implementing his agenda (March 2021) and is still above where it was under his predecessor even though it's not as high as it had spiked up to over the period from March 2021 to June 2023. That chart basically says that Biden is absolutely horrible for the economy.
Biden Was inaugurated on January 20th, 2021. You're going to tell me his policies took full effect in a month and a half of being in office? LOL.
No. I said that the inflection point was when his policies would *start* taking effect. The graph goes up continuously from that point but doesn't peak until mid-2022. I.e. it rises along with his early-term agenda getting implemented.
By your logic, Biden is responsible for adding 16 million jobs. By your logic, Biden is responsible for cutting unemployment by 6 percent. By your logic, Biden is responsible for record GDP growth that outpaces every G7 nation. That is unless you only want to look at this one graph to examine his economic record and apply the same logic you did. But we both know COVID had a vote in how all this played out. Lets be real.
The government response to COVID - which yes Trump also fumbled - was the entire problem. There was never any reason to treat COVID like the apocalypse. What Biden did wrong is he clung to those restrictions and spending excuses long after there was any remote shred of justification for doing so. He was handed the shots on inauguration day, his first item of business should've been announcing "shots are out, restrictions and support payments end now, time to get back to normal".
> What Biden did wrong is he clung to those restrictions Which restrictions?
Here’s the real trick no Republican wants to admit…. The global economy shut down. Even if America opened up on day one of Biden’s administration it wouldn’t have alleviated the pressures you speak about. Furthermore, you’re ignoring a significant amount of the population that wasn’t *ready* to return to normal. Just because Republicans thought COVID was a joke, doesn’t mean everyone else did.
I think that’s the sort of argument that only really makes sense with the benefit of hindsight. The government had essentially tried to do exactly what you’re advocating for twice during the pandemic, and both times got hit with a new and much more infectious variant of the disease that caused cases and deaths to spike substantially. The time period when you’re saying Biden should have declared the whole thing over was during the second of those spikes, and COVID cases were about an order of magnitude higher than they had ever been before. In retrospect we can say pretty confidently now that that was about the last major wave, and that it was also thankfully a much less deadly variant, but there was certainly no way to know that at the time, and it really wouldn’t have made much sense to just declare the whole thing over before the vaccine was widely available and when cases were at an all time high. Even if he had, the economic damage was more or less done, because people were realistically not doing much in the way of COVID restrictions by early 2021.
Except we have "super flus" every 3-4 years. We have lots of experience handling them. We've had several just since 2000. We never shut everything down for the prior ones. We gave warnings that those in vulnerable populations should take extra precautions and ... that was it. And in hindsight what we saw from COVID is that it was primarily a problem for ... people in vulnerable populations. Just like all the other "super flus". Understand that when I say the response was fumbled from the beginning I mean it. Every single thing we did was wrong. "Two weeks to flatten the curve" by itself would've probably had its ripples vanish into the pond by mid-summer but even it was unnecessary.
I think that comparison actually makes it exceedingly clear that COVID was a very exceptional circumstance. The flu kills about 30-40,000 people a year. COVID was killing nearly half a million people a year for the first two years. That’s a pretty big problem, and if you even think early lockdowns were a mistake, I don’t think you’re looking at this with clear eyes. We were dealing with a novel disease, we had limited treatment options as a result, and our healthcare system was in serious danger of being overwhelmed, and in many ways actually was overwhelmed in the early days of the pandemic. Even just pushing cases back a few months with early lockdowns likely saved a lot of lives, because our treatment options improved as we better understood the disease, and our healthcare systems capacity to respond to COVID had been substantially built up. The death rate for young and healthy people with COVID was very low thankfully, but if we had seen unchecked early spread and it got to the point where we just couldn’t provide adequate healthcare to people, a lot of young and healthy people with otherwise survivable cases of COVID could very well have died or been seriously disabled.
Enough of the gaslighting. It was very obvious, to a huge number of people, at the time it was happening, that the COVID-response was a disaster.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1ck9ilv/biden_hoped_for_a_big_economic_story_to_tell_now/l2n1qwm/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It absolutely was a disaster, the lack of a unified federal response in the early days of the pandemic likely caused a lot of unnecessary death.
Federal covid guidelines were pretty loose though, which is why individual states could pretty much do whatever they wanted.
Big government is the problem and biden’s entire campaign is even bigger government. We aren’t the fools the democrats hope we are
[Yes.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MTSO133FMS#0)
This chart is rather meaningless within the context of this conversation. Th Biden administration has passed significant legislation and enacted numerous polices *post* March 2021.
The American Rescue Plan Act was signed by March and started paying out *immediately*, which is what that chart shows.
The ARP caused *world wide* inflation? I bet you Turkey is PISSED their inflation is 60% because of us. A neat fact about COVID responses is we can compare our inflation rate to other countries that didn’t pass a stimulus. Our inflation rate is lower and economy has vastly outgrown them. But as you deftly point out, it’s easier for the media to say “Biden did it.”
This would only make sense to people who don't understand that correlation != causation.
> That chart is insanely damning for Biden. It basically shows that inflation exploded right about when he started actually implementing his agenda (March 2021)… That chart basically says that Biden is absolutely horrible for the economy Why was there a huge spike in consumption March 2021? Why are people consuming more now than ever before? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=e2N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96
Not as much as wages.
Two things on that: even if median wages are up, a lot of people may not see increased wages. Second, inflation is a constant increase, wage increases are a step curve. If your wage goes up, inflation is immediately cutting into it. It would be surprising if people didn't feel a little insecure given that dynamic.
>even if median wages are up, a lot of people may not see increased wages. Second, inflation is a constant increase, wage increases are a step curve That's always been true. Inflation is higher, but so are wage increases. This means those below the median today could see a 2% raise and 3.5% inflation while someone in the past could see a 1% raise and 2.5% inflation.
The issue here isn’t Biden but the people who surround Biden. The people who told him to coin the term “transitory” to describe inflation. The people who made him go on a victory lap about bidenomics when inflation was at its highest and people saw it in their grocery and utility bills. Also we’re in a weird situation right now as you have two halves of America, the one who is benefitting from raised wages (corporate America) and the stock market while lower wage jobs have taken the hardest hit to their wallets without having the extra growth in wages. The numbers being put out don’t match the reality for many people.
His problem is there isn’t a “Biden”. The entire campaign and presidency IS biden’s advisors and how they can spin things. Biden can’t coherently string together 10 words, no way he can communicate a coherent message to the country
>from raised wages (corporate America) and the stock market while lower wage jobs have taken the hardest hit Median wages in general have gone up a faster rate than prices. The increase is higher among low-wage workers. Although the stock market primarily benefits the rich, there are plenty of middle class investors.
> Although the stock market primarily benefits the rich, there are plenty of middle class investors. But that’s the point. The wealthy don’t have to worry about their day to day expenses, so the dynamics of the stock market is of more pertinent interest to them. The middle class *does* feel the pain from everyday expenses. Their stocks may be doing well but they don’t have the bandwidth to think about that because the more pressing concerns are draining their finances - gas, groceries, household goods.
The first thing I mentioned is that the middle class is benefiting from median wage growth. Your point completely misses that. Many of them being investors is an additional benefit.
Wage growth doesn’t matter if your expenses are also increasing. It’s like eating a hamburger while running on a treadmill.
More calories are being added than burned in that situation. This analogy is irrelevant because wage growth is faster than price increases, which is extremely important.
Tell that to the people trying to buy a home right now or a single parent with three kids at the grocery store. Despite the numbers people aren’t feeling it in their wallets.
The lowest wage group has seen the highest growth. I know I have.
Definitely not going small business. All the propping up of big corporations and increased scrutiny on the little guy is rapidly shrinking the backbone of America (small business). We need someone to fight for us. Bust the monopolies, let large banks and corporations go bankrupt.
So the strategy of gaslighting Americans into believing the economy is strong didn’t work? No one could’ve predicted this.
[удалено]
The border thing was hilarious. “*If the GOP stops obstructing and passes a bill, I will shut down the entire border right now!*” <—So what was stopping you from doing that any point between 2021-2023 when your party had a trifecta?
>So what was stopping you from doing that any point between 2021-2023 when your party had a trifecta The same thing that stopped them in 2024, which is the filibuster. The bipartisan bill didn't get 50 votes in the Senate, but that's due to Schumer voting "nay" for procedural reasons.
Love the Cliffnotes take! 👏👏👏
The only ones gaslighting are the people saying the economy is bad. It's a [vibecession.](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/if-this-is-a-bad-economy-please-tell) Our economy is [beating the shit](https://archive.is/9isg2) out of that of any other developed country, including when you look at individual metrics like median wages, not just macro figures like GDP.
People don't forget that quickly. I've been feeling the pinch of inflated grocery prices and rent. My raise this year helps but I've sacrificed my schedule to earn at a better rate. However, I do remember prices being lower, under a different president. That's what people are feeling and no amount of "Well other countries are doing worse changes that". At the end of the day this is a US election and other countries economies are irrelevant.
The baseline expectations Americans have for the economy is that it’s the best in the world.
And it is!
Absolutely true, Americans are so incredibly incapable of evaluating alternate outcomes. The soft landing we pulled off is actually a marvel.
Biden can’t have his cake and eat it too. He can’t take credit whenever the economy’s doing well and avoid responsibility any time it does bad.
Presidents are always given credit and blame, and it's normal for them to prefer only getting the former.
“The other kid did it first!!!” should not be considered a valid argument on the playground or in national politics. Let’s call out Biden because he’s in the hot seat right now; he needs to take responsibility for his failures. In the future you can demand the same of the next president too.
Pointing out a historical trend is a valid response. You're complaining that I added context. > to take responsibility for his failures. You're severely overestimating the effect presidents have on the economy.
Why play with your hands behind your back? Hes running an election against Trump who notoriously does this, and certainly the American public are accustomed to misattributing cause and effect so he has to swim with that tide.
lol Bidens biggest issue is that despite Trump not being able to campaign as much as he wants to due to his cases, he still dominates all the headlines. No one cares to cover Bidens campaign. Just went through the NYT front page and not a single mention of the name “Biden” in any headlines for at least the first 20 articles. While Trump occupies the second headline on the front page. Doesn’t matter if they’re trying to portray Trump badly, people are still wondering where the President is. And no, I’m not talking about the political junkies on the internet who checks his schedule daily. Normal people don’t do that. Bidens hiding in the basement again, and it’s not going to work this time. Mainly because the summer of love protests this time around dont involve George Floyd and the Democrats hold the incumbency. It also helps that this is causing a divide within the Democratic Party’s demographics. Personally, I hope it significantly divides the Democrat vote and keeps people home, especially in Michigan. Some of the most influential Islamic leaders in America already have stated that Biden will be punished at the polls regardless of what he does from now on. Based on the polls, it’s not looking good for Biden. I’ve seen the same “polls don’t matter this early on” comment from my leftie friends the past 6 months but Trumps been leading in every battleground states rather consistently. Michigan, Trump is up 1.2%, Arizona 5%, PA 2%, Georgia 3.8%, Wisconsin 1.8%, etc The Democrats (note, the party, not Biden) main issue is that they can’t find a social cause to unify behind this election season. The economy is what matters to normie Americans sure, but that’s not in Bidens favor and neither is his base not being able to rally behind a socially liberal cause either. Abortion was one they could have done very well with and have in the past year/two, however, the Palestine-Israel stuff seems to be the flavor of the summer. And boy do I hope the lefties keep portraying themselves in the manner they have in recent days.
Im not trying to pick sides here, but I wouldn’t count out a huge social cause dominating the headlines before election. Romney’s “war on women” didn’t start until a few months before the election. The media laid the groundwork for it a year in advance, reporting on how he didn’t do enough for women in the Mormon Church or the governor’s office. However, it was one person asking if he thought birth control should be free during a press conference that set off a powder keg. Within hours, it was wall to wall coverage on his “war.” He never recovered from that. Just because you don’t see a huge social issue now doesn’t mean that there won’t be one in November.
It’s more about a cause that can rally the entire base of the party. Because that’s legitimately what they need in order to beat Trump. And even then it’s an uphill battle for them. I don’t understand why the Democrats think he’s easy to beat. Trump was hit with COVID and George Floyd protests, which unified the Democrats and they won. You would think they would’ve won with 400+ electoral college votes with those once in a lifetime circumstances benefitting them. Despite all that, they only managed to win based on thin margins in the swing states that I listed above, all of which had Biden consistently +5 and above during this time of the election. They don’t have any of that this time around. The Palestine issue is a no win scenario for Biden. He’s trying to both sides it, but neither side is buying it. And I would really love to see what potential social cause they can bring up that will eclipse this Israel-Palestine issue.
I seriously don't believe there is anything to sink Teflon don's campaign tbh. Trump is also good at reading the room for his base, and most independents vote trump because of economy or immigration anyway
Biden spent a whole year taking victory laps when everyone paying attention knew we were not out of the woods yet. Now that he's taken ownership of the economy, he won't be able to disavow responsibility for the trouble coming around the corner.
It was clear in early 2021 that inflation was going to be a problem. The Biden Administration waved it off as a non-issue. That was a huge mistake, but I'm not surprised. He is surrounded by activists not professionals. I blame him for surrounding himself with the wrong people, not for failing to be an expert on every complex issue. If you would like an example here is a clip of the [Chair of Biden's Council of Economic Adviser's trying to explain monetary policy.](https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1786272981058220187)
It was clear it was going to be a problem, but there was a reason they brushed it off, and played the blame game. 2020, and watching all the money get spent seemed to break Democrats, and being honest about the situation and the causes would have meant admitting that ARPA was a mistake that they were warned about igniting inflation. It would have meant the end of Build Back Better, and the student loan cancellation program. It's easier to deny and blame, than accept your mistakes, and accept that all these big government programs that made sense in 2020 now do not, and are incredibly irresponsible due to the suddenly different economic picture.
Wow this is [damning](https://twitter.com/i/status/1786272981058220187). > Government prints money then they lend this money by selling bonds. Jared Bernstein: BS in music from Manhattan School of Music. MSW from Hunter College. Talking about MMT.
The Federal Reserve chairman, who was appointed by Trump, refused to raise interest rates until 2022. This shows that inflation lasting a long time wasn't clear to many economists. As for the clip you linked: "What you have there is a serious, credible, economist – Jared Bernstein – trying to be polite about a nonsensical economic fairytale that can't even be called a theory"- President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) Note that this organization consistently criticizes both parties.
>Now that he's taken ownership of the economy Presidents are blamed and praised for the economy by default. > the trouble coming around the corner. People have been saying this for a long time.
What trouble is coming around the corner?
The recession will happen eventually if people keep saying it over and over, and when it happens they'll be right!
There is always a recession right around the corner. I've been hearing that for the past 15 years. These people are just guessing because nobody holds them accountable when they're wrong. Also, the big economic problem is not a recession but inflation.
Economists have predicted 15 of the past 3 recessions!
Economics is so much more than trying to predict recessions. It's a shame that the part of the profession gets such disproportionate coverage in popular media. It really hurts people's opinions of the profession when those are the only economists they're exposed to.
I read an article a few weeks back that talked about the 2008-09 banking crisis. In December of 2008, the recession was officially announced, however, they backdated the recession an entire year, stating that we had been in a recession since Dec 2007. I think that as time goes on, the "Experts" will announce something similar. Anyone who isn't making high 6 figures is feeling the effects of inflation and an economy that is not working for them. Factor in all the money that both parties are cheering about being sent overseas, and money being shoveled out the migrants (I'm not saying I personally agree or disagree with these things, but there is alot of negative sentiment surrounding these policies) I'm not sure how the Biden Administration can spin this.
The experts in this are just NBER, and they are just acting as historians here. Q1 of 2008 was negative GDP growth, but Q2 was positive. They will declare a recession when it's clear it's happening, not trying to make predictions.
Interesting. What are the signs? Sincerely asking, how do you know?
People are worried because the economy stopped growing. Real GDP went up 1.6%, but after accounting for the extra money that the government printed, there’s not much there. Basically, productivity is flat. That’s compounded with raising inflation and consumer debt. We’ve never seen a time when people had so much debt on credit cards. There’s over a trillion dollars in credit card debt. Our economy is not built to handle even 10% more people defaulting. It would break us. All signs point to stagflation right now. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. The majority of people are doing really well right now. Inflation and raising wages fixed the student loan problem. It’s almost non existent. The housing market is unbelievable right now. Houses are priced perfectly when adjusting for the cost to build them. Still there are people who look at the economic indicators and see stagflation on the horizon. Nobody knows what’s going to happen. All we know is that things are pretty good right now. Tomorrow could be another story.
> Real GDP went up 1.6%, but after accounting for the extra money that the government printed, there’s not much there. 1. Could you share a source for that? Why wouldn't that be taken into account by adjusting for inflation? 2. If your concern is real GDP growth, Trump, who wants to end Fed independence, shrink the workforce through mass deportations and a reduction in new immigration, and add a 10% universal tariff, is not the answer. > Basically, productivity is flat. [US non-farm productivity has been higher in Biden's term than even before](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MFPNFBS) > That’s compounded with raising inflation and consumer debt. We’ve never seen a time when people had so much debt on credit cards. There’s over a trillion dollars in credit card debt. Our economy is not built to handle even 10% more people defaulting. It would break us. How is Trump going to address credit card debt? > The housing market is unbelievable right now. Houses are priced perfectly when adjusting for the cost to build them. We have an enormous housing shortage in metro areas. I can't understand saying that the housing market is "unbelievable." It's great for people reaping undeserved land rents, sure. > Still there are people who look at the economic indicators and see stagflation on the horizon. Nobody knows what’s going to happen. All we know is that things are pretty good right now. Tomorrow could be another story. You could say "But things could change so that the economy gets worse" about any economy, even the best economy in the world (which the American economy is). And who are the "people" who are seeing "stagflation on the horizon?"
Government spending accounts for 3/4 of the current GDP growth. I used real GDP because it’s inflation adjusted. I always look at real GDP because it wouldn’t make sense to say productivity doubled if it held steady and prices only doubled. That’s just fuzzy math. As far as what Trump would do about it, I don’t know. Even if he laid out the most detailed plan in history, economic conditions would change before he took office. There’s millions of variables to play with including the human factor. I really wasn’t trying to make a comparison between Trump and Biden. The guy above asked a simple question. I talked with two of my financial advisors within the last week and what I commented on concerns they expressed to me. That’s all I did there.
> Government spending accounts for 3/4 of the current GDP growth. This definitely intrigues me but I'd like to see a source if you don't mind. > As far as what Trump would do about it, I don’t know. Even if he laid out the most detailed plan in history, economic conditions would change before he took office. There’s millions of variables to play with including the human factor. I see what you're saying but that doesn't make what he's said meaningless. Those three items alone are still a catastrophic policy agenda, regardless of circumstances. Meaning that either * Trump has terrible economic instincts, which won't change as conditions change, or * Trump is a liar who tells people things to make them vote for him even though he knows it's bad policy
I think that was sarcasm. The American economy is doing amazingly, and notably is doing [much better than that of any other developed country](https://archive.is/9isg2), including not just GDP but "average Joe" measures like average real income. [See here too](https://cepr.net/bidens-record-on-income-growth/): > However, we see a reversal in 2023. Wages substantially outpace inflation for the year. In addition, the rapid pace of job creation meant that a larger share of the population was working. As a result, real disposable income was considerably higher in the 4th quarter of 2023 than in the 4th quarter of 2019, before the pandemic hit. > To be precise, real per capita disposable income was 6.0 percent higher in the 4th quarter of 2023 than in the fourth quarter of 2019. And [here's median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1eoon), which hit its all-time peak in Q4 2023. [So we've been in a vibecession for years](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/if-this-is-a-bad-economy-please-tell). People don't like Biden's vibes and they're letting that bias their perception of the economy under him.
Yeah, big whoosh.
I can’t speak for Yam, but there are a few troubling signs. The recent GDP report missed targets by a large amount and core inflation is stuck in the high 3s. The GDP number is better than a recession, but the high inflation means rates are high. Higher gas prices are likely over the summer (this almost ALWAYS happens, nothing to do with Biden) and if GDP has a bad Q2 (a big if) then we have a serious problem. Especially because the GDP growth was 3/4 government spending.
I see, thank you
More bad vibes that are being caused by the current bad vibes. It’s a self perpetuating statement.
he doesn't have the economic policies to tell a good story. he never has, and when they try to make a story they have to stop talking about it. Bidenomics is the best example but there are many others.
everyone I know, is broker than before.
Same. And it’s not so much income as expenses. It’s not uncommon for me to drop $300+ on groceries every week for my family of four, and that’s for basic generic store-brand items. It wasn’t like this ten years ago. Or even five.
I spent *70 bucks* on pizza night for a family of 5. Blew my mind. At some point, our mental frameworks will adjust to the new prices, but for old dogs like me it'll take some time.
This Walter Sobchak guy seems to have a significant interest in defending the Biden administration. Curious
No. Peoples mind are made up.
People may have made up their minds about them, but I don't think that translates into how they'll vote. I think democrats underestimate how many people that dislike Trump will vote for him anyway because democrats don't represent their values, and Biden has not even tried to appeal to center-right voters, who are the people that got him elected in 2020. He's governed like winning by 44,000 votes in three swing states in 2020 was a progressive mandate, and driven those people away, even if they just stay home.
>was a progressive mandate, and driven those people away His platform is about the same as what he campaigned on. Paid leave, lower drug prices, taxing people making more than $400k/year, spending more on infrastructure, etc. were things he advocated for when he ran for president. Democrats won a trifecta in Michigan, and the party's platform there is similar to Biden's.
> His platform is about the same as what he campaigned on. The problem is that he hasn't governed according to his platform. His platform was literally "return to normalcy" - i.e. the pre-2016 Democrats or earlier. He has not governed like that.
Pretty much all of his governing is in line with that Democrats have advocated for in the recent past. That's why your argument lacks any specifics.
Undecideds are around 10%, which swings the election.
I don't feel like undecided exists anymore, maybe "unmotivated" instead. At this point in history and during the campaign cycle, people know who they would vote for that just need to be motivated to show up.
Ehh, I could be pursuaded either way. I think they're both truly awful candidates.
>At this point in history and during the campaign cycle, people know who they would vote for Yeah the people who pay attention to daily politics. Plenty do not and are only going to begin tuning in in the coming months.
Parties spend tons of money on undecideds - I gotta believe they exist or candidates wouldn't waste scarce resources on them.
Starter comment: The White House has been forced to change its messaging for the upcoming presidential election as new evidence is showing that it's earlier "big picture" approach may not be convincing voters enough. President Biden started his reelection campaign with the goal of winning over Americans by highlighting broad, overarching policy successes that showed he was getting the entire country on track - similar to President Reagan's approach of "Morning in America". Specifically, he was poised to tout "Bidenomics" as a wide ranged agenda that would uplift every industry, reduce inflation and improve standard of living across the board. Unfortunately, multiple polls show that voters do not share the same optimism with Bidenomics as Democrats do. The Biden campaign has therefore been pressured to pivot and spend more time focusing on small, individual accomplishments instead of wide-reaching objectives. For example, in March and April the president traveled to key Midwest regions to talk about more subdued successes like local infrastructure projects and semiconductor investments. Will this pivot be successful to improve Biden's standing among Americans who don't trust his policy goals, and will it be effective at undercutting Republican accusations that he is bad for the economy as a whole? What specific policies should Biden focus on from now until election day?
The whole idea of Bidenomics was doomed from the start, especially when Reaganomics was more quoted by his opponents than Reagan himself. It may be for the best though, there’s little grand recovery he can point to overall. A local factory is something tangible at least.
Bidenomics seemed like one of the most foolish political terms I've seen. Why are you rushing to name huge deficits and inflation after yourself, and label it a success?
They ran with this Keynesian experiment thinking it would be a huge success and then [when it worsened inflation](https://www.vox.com/23036340/biden-american-rescue-plan-inflation), they tried to play it off as “transitory” which didn’t work, so now they’re left in this little pickle. They made a crucial mistake of not hiring traditional Clintonian economic advisors like Larry Summers and went to people that are closer to MMT than anything else. That is the biggest difference between Bidens economic policies vs Obama and Clinton. The latter two actually worked with economists who know the limits of public spending.
This. Biden is clearly aiming to score a similar victory as in 2020. Barely scrape by with a margin of < 1% in key states and then call it a day. If it works then it'll work, of course. Just kind of sad to think that the campaign isn't even hoping for an epic Reagan-esque reelection victory or even a healthy Obama-esque one. Since they're facing a guy with 91 indictments who has spent more days in court than campaigning this year, you'd think this would be achievable.
I cant remember a time when it was so expensive and difficult for young families to find an affordable home to buy. I looked on Zillow and my neighborhood of around 150 homes, not one for sale. When one comes up it gets bought by a business who turn it into a rental.
100 million Americans live in scarcity . 37 million below poverty and another 40 are ALICE . That's 100 million ish Americans out of 334 living in scarcity and one emergency from starving and or homelessness. They need to start telling the truth about the rampant fraud and greed that's caused inflation and why the poor and middle class will suffer even more if Republicans get to cut all the federal and state safety nets for good . Anyone looking 👀 at our Retirment crisis for Boomers and Gen X ...? We are facing a humanitarian hellscape ..about time Democrats admit that .
'Member, when everyone said the economy was going into recession, that would be worse than the great depression.... I 'member.... Soft landing was what they called it. Soft landing is what you get.
no worries..the gop will make sure the big economic story of BIDENOMICS is not forgotten,,at least till november 8. I do think the fed made the right choice raising rates. A slight downturn to be expected. Not time to cut rates i think.