Panic was warned against before the fact.
In spite of, not by.
I was more going back to the 60s and thatâs when it was absolutely true. During the 70s, all that began to change and to continue on a path of economic improvement, it required two people working.
The 7.9% increase is from 2018 to 2019.
Sure. And now it is rationalization. The economy was propped up. Nothing wrong with it mind you but to ignore it and say one event is just silly. The economy was ok to begin with. I loved the ok.
Iâm on board with Trumpâs actions and believe what he did, was the basis for that increase.
The economy was propped up before you © shut it down for the virus?
Then why are we discussing women in the work force?
Biden and Obama set it up and got out of the way. Donald rode that train for 2 years, and the petulant foot stomping right pretend thatâs where it started. It didnât. And Donald could only keep it going for 2 years. Typical for his whole life.
1 Like
Mmm thatâs a delicious canard. When Democrats save this country form collapse itâs in spite of
When the gop collapses the economy itâs because of Democrats. what can wrong with that argument, like ever.
You donât understand.
JJs post went back and was discussing a longer term trend and when he said, âtwice as hardâ, what I suggested going back far enough in the social construct/economic history of our country, he is correct.
1 Like
Of course it was. QE, government spending. Again itâs not a bad thing.
No, not the GOP.
Dems are antithesis to business.
The GOP is marginally better. At times. Government is antithesis to business.
Debt-based, managed economy. âManagedâ by what?
The idea that a corporatist President who wrote pushed through his legacy which was a gift to insurance companies is antithetical to business is neither logical nor true.
To answe your question government intervention. Since day one. Like 18th century day 1
Why? Why was it necessary? To counter a correction of government action.
You are not really a believer that CRA caused 2008 are you?
I understand.
Twice as hard was being used as an example.
Wages havenât grown as fast as household income hasâŠtherefore if wage earners were sharing in this growth, they were working harder to do so (very few wage earners own stock beyond a 401K perhaps so we canât count in passive investment growth).
We see with COVID how fragile the economy actually isâŠhow people can be going gangbusters and then immediately be in an existential crisis (not all of which was caused by governments âshutting things downâ.
And none of this detracts from the other parts of that long post.
Corporate tax cuts went largely to stock buybacks and dividendsâŠnot reinvested for future growth,
Repatriation did not bring a significantly larger amount of investment dollars back into the US.
The rate of new capital investments into the country slowed, not increased, after the tax cuts were passed.
There is shockingly little evidence that the economic growth we did see from 2018-19 had anything to do with the Presidentâs policies.
7.9% is a promotion.
