Lil devils x:?
Here?s a few comments on the economy from NPR and CNN, which are both typically left leaning. Even though the latter still couldn?t help itself by veering off into other negative topics. Here?s another typically liberal media outlet asserting the same notion of giving him credit for defying the odds.
CNN, NPR and CNBC are Third Way, centerist, populist websites. They're neoliberals who care. A left-wing website would be something like Huffpost or The Guardian.
Besides that, all Trump has done (according to those articles) is enact the standard Regan/Thatcherite policy: cut top-end taxes at the expense of everyone else, cut back on necessary regulation, make cuts to vital services and take on even more debt. Anyone who has studied history can tell that this will result in the same pattern as always: major boom, sudden slowdown, massive crash, tax cut, recovery. Rinse and repeat; that's exactly how Reganonomics is designed to work.
Those articles also point out that wage growth has barely improved and most of the economic recovery had already begun in the Obama era. Not only that, but NPR pointed out that these booms are centered around secondary industries, which have benefited from tariffs, while the more sustainable services industry (which accounts for about 68% of the GDP, if I remember correctly) has seen little change. In other words, things have improved at the top end of town, but the effect is limited elsewhere.
How is this possible when the New York Times said prior to the election that ?the underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White a house in November.??
Because Trump has put a temporary stopgap on the collapse of supply-side economics. Also because while economists make predictions, they're not wizards with the ability to see into the future.
Put it this way, since no one with less than 24:7 free time on their hands would investigate each claim on a list just because Trump made them vs anyone else promising things on a campaign trail: do you really think this type of growth would be happening if Hillary won?
No, I think the US would be a slower, albeit stabler path to recovery. A boom always leads to a bust, dickhead. That is a key principle modern economics. [EDIT]: Also, fact-checking is a standard journalistic practice. In fact, you should be grateful you live in a country with a diverse range of media outlets to hold politicians accountable, rather than, say, my country, where Rupert Murdoch controls over a a third of all media.
He is a bloody businessman, so of course he?d rather be negotiating deals for the upper hand rather than end up beholden to various big business donors steering his election any which way they please.
Ah yes, the infallible logic of "why would a big businessman be working in the interests of big business?" Seriously, do you think Trump would support tariffs if they weren't beneficial to his friends in American Steel?
Granted yes, of course wealthier people are benefiting more, because they simply have more skin in the game. They?re the ones who will really be creating jobs and additional wealth for their workers and the economy as a whole.
Trickle-down economics is a load of crap. CEOs will only supply more if they believe there is demand for it. Supply-side miracles like Apple or Microsoft happen once in a blue moon, not all the time. And I guarantee most of that extra money is going to Panama, not back into the US of A.
The only thing I envy of a typical Fortune 500 CEO is their bank account.
There's more to life than being uber-rich, man. Who the fuck actually needs a billion dollars, anyway?
Chances are most of them - at least the ?good? ones - are more stressed out and exhausted from the burden of being responsible for so many choices that affect so many people.
I think I actually lost my train of though from the sheer stupid of that comment. $2 million USD paychecks, a board of directors and managers to take care of everything for you...I sincerely doubt the average CEO is as overworked as you make out.
The other key takeaway is, everyone once started out as a small business.
Actually most of the uber rich were born into their money (save for tech startups). That small business crap is possible the most obnoxious lie ever sold to the American populance.
The other big thing that makes me laugh is how North Korea has been in political isolation for several administrations, yet Trump of all people managed to break down that barrier as well. I have a feeling if Obama has done that he would?ve been given another Nobel peace prize, and damn near given Sainthood status by the leftist pundits. People can call it circumstantial or downplay it in any other number of ways, but again, it leads me to wonder how things would?ve played out, if at all, if someone else was in office. God knows the career politicians have had more than their fair share of chances to change things. But no, ironically it was always business as usual for them.
Well, Obama was to busy tactfully negotiating with an up and coming world power (Iran) and nearby socialist stronghold (Cuba) to deal with a powerless Chinese puppet state and bully. Not to mention that China rather likes having a barrier between them the No 1. example of American Imperialism (South Korea). But good job Trump, you've given in to the demands of a tyrannical dictatorship under the influence of your purported No 1. enemy, while burning the bridges Obama built to Iran and Cuba. Outstanding move!
I?d like to comment more when I have time
but the bottom line I?m getting at is, there is a grey area to things that people on one side of the other often choose not to operate in for any number of reasons.
Actually they do, you're just cherry-picking your sources and blocking anything that doesn't agree with your pro-Trump worldview.
Yes, Trump has done a lot of questionable things and made a lot of bad decisions before and after taking office,
That's one way of putting it, I suppose.
but to simply write him off as an incompetent moron or rely on hearsay comments of other talking heads to form a definitive opinion is ultimately self defeating and counterproductive in itself.
Well for once we agree. I think we should see him as a bratty tyrant who is screwing over his base (with their tacit approval), causing major problems in international relations and sucking up to the very businessmen he attacked in his campaign. Then people might start seeing him as a serious threat.
He?s still managed to somehow accomplish more than most people in the world
I mean...compared to Johnny Scumfuck the jobless porn addict from Ohio, maybe. But compared to other world leaders? Fucking forget it.
with far more adversity; especially with much of it being self-inflicted, but that?s just a part of his overarching (read: controversial) personality and why he?s still such a large media draw. It?s kinda sad and fascinating at the same time.
Yes, it's the exact same strategy AOC is using: exploiting the media's desire for headlines by constantly saying controversial stuff. It tends to stop working after a few years though, when "the outlier" becomes "the norm".