US Politics Megathread

[Goodspeed]

In an attempt to meet with view points that do not align with my own, I decided to look elsewhere than ESOC where the resident conservatives seem to have very little to bring to the table. I hate reddit with burning passion but generally having a look at /r/conservative allows me to consider other angles than my own.

re: 25% tariffs, this is what a quick glance at their thread gave me.





Seems to me that even his informed voter base is a little confused by Trump's plans and potential overreach. There was a comment that mentions "leverage for negotiations" which is pretty much what I've landed at. Negotiations for what though, no one knows.

So unfortunately for me, I still don't have the answers I'm looking for. Maybe I should watch a Shapiro podcast or something

It is hard to trust your judgment on anything when you went to reddit to find smarter conservatives than me and Minimoult. You could've learn that Trump uses the threat of tariffs to negotiate if you had just read my post at the top of page 1291 that I made on November 13th.

If it's so obviously just a negotiating tactic, then it's an empty threat that other countries can safely ignore. For it to be credible, there has to be a non-zero chance the tariffs actually happen

[Dolan]

Nah he's gonna do it because he wants to see it create disruption, panic, making everyone run around shouting "oh no he did it, the absolute madman".
He wants to unleash those energies everyone is afraid of, trampling underfoot the most sacred established norms just for the sake of forcing tectonic changes.

[iNcog]

It is hard to trust your judgment on anything when you went to reddit to find smarter conservatives than me and Minimoult. You could've learn that Trump uses the threat of tariffs to negotiate if you had just read my post at the top of page 1291 that I made on November 13th.

I can't help it if you set the bar that low.

Negotiate what anyway?

[iNcog]

By the way @Sensei I am totally serious about looking over serious analysis that orange man can do good. I am still in the boat that I hope I am overreacting. So if you have any good sources and materials, would love to read it.

[Goodspeed]

If you're still open to the idea that Trump could be good for America you're delusional tbh

[iNcog]

If you're still open to the idea that Trump could be good for America you're delusional

I'm not that open to it. Probably in no capacity whatsoever is Trump good for America. Maybe I am looking to cope by looking for silver linings.

I am often pretty naïve. It took a long time for me to identify that just because people say things doesn't mean they are right. I am trying to be less trusting and more cynical.

But in the back of my mind, it's like "so many people are convinced Trump is good, even lies need to contain slivers of truth, so where are these slivers?"

But alas, I can't seem to bait out any real discourse from those with opposing views

[iNcog]

What are the main imports from Mexico and Canada? They are both huge exporters to the US so these tariffs would be very inflationary. Will congress let this happen? It's probably speedrunning losing the midterms and 2028 elections, given the impact inflation had on this one.

I would think that if you want to bring certain industries back to the US, you'd target them specifically. These blanket tariffs seem to make no economic sense

I'm not sure these tariffs will actually happen, but it seems to me like Trump will be able to make some kind of deal to get more out of Canada than he would without making these threats. The Canadian economy is currently at its worst point since 2008, and the way the Canadian government/media are talking about these tariff threats makes me think they are willing to do almost anything to avoid them, even if means conceding something elsewhere.

I've also been wondering if he's even entirely wrong about the tariffs in the current economic climate. Both the Mexican Peso and Canadian Dollar are doing poorly at the moment, and look like they're going to go even lower in relation to the US Dollar as a result of this news, which seems like it could help the US when negotiating anything trade related.

To me it almost sounds like Trump is throwing around the weight of the US economy to bully smaller trade partners. In a sense I hope Canada and Mexico can find other trade partners and maybe this is a sign to diversify who they work with.

[Misha]

If you're still open to the idea that Trump could be good for America you're delusional

I'm not that open to it. Probably in no capacity whatsoever is Trump good for America. Maybe I am looking to cope by looking for silver linings.

I am often pretty naïve. It took a long time for me to identify that just because people say things doesn't mean they are right. I am trying to be less trusting and more cynical.

But in the back of my mind, it's like "so many people are convinced Trump is good, even lies need to contain slivers of truth, so where are these slivers?"

But alas, I can't seem to bait out any real discourse from those with opposing views

I know you think you're being open minded, but you're deluding yourself. It's not that hard to find potential "silver linings." Here's one you'll no doubt agree with:

"I look forward to working with the Trump Administration on fulfilling his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%" - Bernie Sanders

Is it inconceivable that a Trump presidency might be better for the economy? It may be inconceivable to you, since you've stated unequivocally that the strong economy under Trump was due to Obama. I am curious to know how you came to this conclusion, which you seem to be fully confident in.

[Sensei]

Obama did such a good job on tade and the economy that during parts of his presidency the Canadian dollar was worth more then the US dollar.

[Goodspeed]

.

[Sensei]

I would guess that any analysis of Trump's general economic plans going forward aka expert opinions are going to be highly partisan. So I'll either find articles that lean left that hate what he is doing or articles that lean right that like it.

You can look to the past to see how Trump did on the economy in his first term. Earlier I posted a Forbes article that went over the typical economic metrics under Trump and Biden that I don't think was particularly bias. Looking at the past and comparing Trump tended to do about the same or better particularly on inflation and individual savings. Inflation disproportionately negatively effects people with less money so it has a huge effect on how most people view their economic situation. It seems unreasonable to me to think that somehow Trump is going to ruin the economy this time around based on his last presidency.

[Goodspeed]

By what metrics are we measuring "the economy"? Should probably start there. It's a particularly important question because many people seem to measure it by stats that are meaningless when taken in a vacuum like the stock market or GDP growth.

Another important question is how do we separate a president's performance from what he inherited? The most striking recent example of why this is important is the difference between what Obama and Trump inherited, that is a global crisis and a post-crisis boom respectively. And then there's the fact that "the economy" is affected by factors beyond a president's control more than by factors that are in his control.

The only meaningful analysis one can do is looking at specific policies these presidents enacted and doing some informed speculation about what economic outcomes they effected. That's about the best we can do.

So the first thing to do would be to list the major economic policies that Trump enacted. Can someone who paid attention to US politics in those 4 years make an attempt?

[iNcog]

If you're still open to the idea that Trump could be good for America you're delusional

I'm not that open to it. Probably in no capacity whatsoever is Trump good for America. Maybe I am looking to cope by looking for silver linings.

I am often pretty naïve. It took a long time for me to identify that just because people say things doesn't mean they are right. I am trying to be less trusting and more cynical.

But in the back of my mind, it's like "so many people are convinced Trump is good, even lies need to contain slivers of truth, so where are these slivers?"

But alas, I can't seem to bait out any real discourse from those with opposing views

I know you think you're being open minded, but you're deluding yourself. It's not that hard to find potential "silver linings." Here's one you'll no doubt agree with:

"I look forward to working with the Trump Administration on fulfilling his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%" - Bernie Sanders

Is it inconceivable that a Trump presidency might be better for the economy? It may be inconceivable to you, since you've stated unequivocally that the strong economy under Trump was due to Obama. I am curious to know how you came to this conclusion, which you seem to be fully confident in.

Problem is trump is a liar and won't follow through on that campaign promise

Trump v Obama. Uhhh Obama spent 8 years cleaning up the mess gop made with sub prime crisis. Start of 2017 everything was well priced, strong stock market, etc. Trump came in, didn't do anything, got credit for Obama's work. Until he fucked up pandemic response

I can circle back with a more complete response a little later.

[Misha]

Show hidden quotes

If you're still open to the idea that Trump could be good for America you're delusional

I'm not that open to it. Probably in no capacity whatsoever is Trump good for America. Maybe I am looking to cope by looking for silver linings.

I am often pretty naïve. It took a long time for me to identify that just because people say things doesn't mean they are right. I am trying to be less trusting and more cynical.

But in the back of my mind, it's like "so many people are convinced Trump is good, even lies need to contain slivers of truth, so where are these slivers?"

But alas, I can't seem to bait out any real discourse from those with opposing views

I know you think you're being open minded, but you're deluding yourself. It's not that hard to find potential "silver linings." Here's one you'll no doubt agree with:

"I look forward to working with the Trump Administration on fulfilling his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%" - Bernie Sanders

Is it inconceivable that a Trump presidency might be better for the economy? It may be inconceivable to you, since you've stated unequivocally that the strong economy under Trump was due to Obama. I am curious to know how you came to this conclusion, which you seem to be fully confident in.

Problem is trump is a liar and won't follow through on that campaign promise

Trump v Obama. Uhhh Obama spent 8 years cleaning up the mess gop made with sub prime crisis. Start of 2017 everything was well priced, strong stock market, etc. Trump came in, didn't do anything, got credit for Obama's work. Until he fucked up pandemic response

I can circle back with a more complete response a little later.

You’re making a number of assertions without providing supporting evidence, so I’ll wait for your full response. @Goodspeed ’s recent post is, of course, the proper way to evaluate economic policy. However, this is easier said than done since (1) we can never observe the counterfactual, and (2) as @Sensei pointed out, much of the research in this area is highly partisan.

I think we all tend to default to our baseline beliefs when evaluating economic policy. To simplify: those on the left often view "trickle-down economics" as flawed and see corporations as inherently greedy, while those on the right tend to believe that "free markets are good" and that tax cuts promote growth. I share the latter perspective because this makes logical sense to me and is supported by historical examples. I admit that I’m not relying on recent research to support my view, and I would wager that the vast majority of others aren't either.

If there's interest in studying and discussing the economics literature on Trump's tax cuts or Obama's economic policies, I’d be happy to participate.

[Goodspeed]

@Goodspeed ’s recent post is, of course, the proper way to evaluate economic policy. However, this is easier said than done since (1) we can never observe the counterfactual, and (2) as @Sensei pointed out, much of the research in this area is highly partisan.

I think the main reason it's hard to do is that the economy is extremely complex and so are a lot of these laws that get passed during a president's term, as well as international trade deals, etc. Figuring out the actual effects of policies sounds really hard and time consuming. It's at least way above my pay grade. But we can make an attempt.

If there's interest in studying and discussing the economics literature on Trump's tax cuts or Obama's economic policies, I’d be happy to participate.

The first question is: How do we define economic success? This is already something we are unilkely to agree on I think. Your take?

[Misha]

@Goodspeed ’s recent post is, of course, the proper way to evaluate economic policy. However, this is easier said than done since (1) we can never observe the counterfactual, and (2) as @Sensei pointed out, much of the research in this area is highly partisan.

I think the main reason it's hard to do is that the economy is extremely complex and so are a lot of these laws that get passed during a president's term, as well as international trade deals, etc. Figuring out the actual effects of policies sounds really hard and time consuming. It's at least way above my pay grade. But we can make an attempt.

If there's interest in studying and discussing the economics literature on Trump's tax cuts or Obama's economic policies, I’d be happy to participate.

The first question is: How do we define economic success? This is already something we are unilkely to agree on I think. Your take?

Well, we can take a single metric, e.g. inflation-adjusted wage growth or GDP growth, which presumably we agree are important components of economic success. It will still be difficult to assess the affects of policies on just these quantities. We can try to read this paper, which Wikipedia cites to say the Trump Tax Cuts didn't have a big effect on economic growth or median wages:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.38.3.61

[Dolan]

I've looked into this before and realised that corporations have learned to become opaque to government fiscal policy. When Obama increased taxes, it did spike up tax revenue by a few %s for a few years, then corporations adapted and found ways to reduce their taxable footprint, for example by reinvesting profit.

It's not surprising that when they get tax cuts, they swallow up most of the gains, reinvest some, then throw some crumbs to the minions. So the economy sees much less growth than was expected. It probably ends up in stock buybacks which don't get counted in GDP. The shareholders' portfolio is growing, though.

[Goodspeed]

@Goodspeed ’s recent post is, of course, the proper way to evaluate economic policy. However, this is easier said than done since (1) we can never observe the counterfactual, and (2) as @Sensei pointed out, much of the research in this area is highly partisan.

I think the main reason it's hard to do is that the economy is extremely complex and so are a lot of these laws that get passed during a president's term, as well as international trade deals, etc. Figuring out the actual effects of policies sounds really hard and time consuming. It's at least way above my pay grade. But we can make an attempt.

If there's interest in studying and discussing the economics literature on Trump's tax cuts or Obama's economic policies, I’d be happy to participate.

The first question is: How do we define economic success? This is already something we are unilkely to agree on I think. Your take?

Well, we can take a single metric, e.g. inflation-adjusted wage growth or GDP growth, which presumably we agree are important components of economic success. It will still be difficult to assess the affects of policies on just these quantities. We can try to read this paper, which Wikipedia cites to say the Trump Tax Cuts didn't have a big effect on economic growth or median wages:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.38.3.61

I don't care about GDP personally. I think it's okay as a long-term (decades) metric for growth, but in the short term it's affected too much by the success or failure of very large (tech) companies that are a big part of GDP but only employ a couple hundred people. Also, GDP growth doesn't always translate to better economic outcomes for people.

Real wage growth is more like it, but it doesn't fully take into account cost of living. It also doesn't take unemployment into account (as far as I know?) so we would need to add employment stats as well. Also, in the theoretical scenario where wages increase for 90% of the population but decrease for 10%, and that 10% happened to already be struggling and this puts them into poverty, it's going to lead to increases in crime and general instability, which I would say is economic failure.

Ultimately, in my view, we have to look at standards of living. How about the "social progress index"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Progress_Index. It seems to be made up of parameters that result from economic success. It measures access to basic human needs, health, personal freedom, safety etcetera.

[Misha]

Show hidden quotes

@Goodspeed ’s recent post is, of course, the proper way to evaluate economic policy. However, this is easier said than done since (1) we can never observe the counterfactual, and (2) as @Sensei pointed out, much of the research in this area is highly partisan.

I think the main reason it's hard to do is that the economy is extremely complex and so are a lot of these laws that get passed during a president's term, as well as international trade deals, etc. Figuring out the actual effects of policies sounds really hard and time consuming. It's at least way above my pay grade. But we can make an attempt.

If there's interest in studying and discussing the economics literature on Trump's tax cuts or Obama's economic policies, I’d be happy to participate.

The first question is: How do we define economic success? This is already something we are unilkely to agree on I think. Your take?

Well, we can take a single metric, e.g. inflation-adjusted wage growth or GDP growth, which presumably we agree are important components of economic success. It will still be difficult to assess the affects of policies on just these quantities. We can try to read this paper, which Wikipedia cites to say the Trump Tax Cuts didn't have a big effect on economic growth or median wages:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.38.3.61

I don't care about GDP personally. I think it's okay as a long-term (decades) metric for growth, but in the short term it's affected too much by the success or failure of very large (tech) companies. Also, GDP growth doesn't always translate to better economic outcomes for people.

Real wage growth is more like it, but it doesn't fully take into account cost of living. It also doesn't take unemployment into account (as far as I know?) so we would need to add employment stats as well. Also, in the theoretical scenario where wages increase for 90% of the population but decrease for 10%, and that 10% happened to already be struggling and this puts them into poverty, it's going to lead to increases in crime and general instability, which I would say is economic failure.

Ultimately, in my view, we have to look at standards of living. How about the "social progress index"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Progress_Index

I agree to look at standard of living, but we need to look at an objective, quantitative, and easily measured metric for standard of living (or some aspect of it). E.g. the consumer price index (CPI) would be reasonable (obviously, there is more to standard of living than just the CPI).

The index you propose is an extremely broad and opaque average of 13 different things. There's no objective and quantitative metric for half of them. How are they computing a numeric score for "opportunity" or "foundations of wellbeing"? I'm sure they have a formula somewhere but there's no description on the wikipedia page, and it is going to be some sort of proxy or it's appropriateness will be subjective.

Evaluating the effects of a policy on something more simple like GDP growth or the CPI is already very hard as you say. It will be impossible to scientifically and rigorously to evaluate the effects on this index.

[Dolan]

Worth noting that prices falling during Trump's term and the pandemic were due to deflation, ie economy shrinking.
And the peaks in prices during Trump's pre-pandemic term are about the same as the lows during Biden's term. But it seems there's some psychological effect here too.
So to some extent what voters think could be post-hoc rationalisations, because differences in terms of worked minutes/commodity are not significant.

[Dolan]

But as I previously wrote, I have my doubts that this election was won/lost on living costs. The reasons are most likely not "rational", but more related to a wish to kick the incumbents out, to Trump using his reality TV show host entertainer skills and Biden pulling out of the race too late. Also Americans not wanting to have a female leader yet, maybe they're waiting for a bossy Latina or some Palin kind of cowgirl to persuade them.

If you know how to charm the masses, they'll vote for you even if they're a bit hungrier than last time. But it's harder to win that charm offensive when you've been in power for 4 years.
To me the image of voters sitting down and writing on paper rational reasonings for how they should vote is hillarious. Their minds have already decided whom they'll vote for before they'll rationalise it.

[Sensei]

I agree SPI looks highly subjective. Placing the UK above the USA in "personal freedom and choice" when you can be jailed in the UK for what is free speech in the US makes me highly suspect as one example.

Feelings on personal freedom are also going to vary widely among individuals. Many people in the US value the right to keep and bear arms and many people in the US and other countries think that is insane.

Wage growth, employment and inflation seem to do a decent job of being measurable and capturing the effect of the economy on the majority of the population. Of course even these objective metrics can be manipulated so you'd just have to trust whatever government source isn't playing games with the numbers.

Then in the end even if we agreed on metrics I doubt we'd ever agree on the cause and effect of presidential policies vs. All the other factors.

[fightinfrenchman]

But as I previously wrote, I have my doubts that this election was won/lost on living costs. The reasons are most likely not "rational", but more related to a wish to kick the incumbents out

Why do you think there's a global trend of kicking out incumbents?

If you know how to charm the masses, they'll vote for you even if they're a bit hungrier than last time. But it's harder to win that charm offensive when you've been in power for 4 years.

Before Trump, the previous 3 presidents all won two terms in a row

[Sensei]

But as I previously wrote, I have my doubts that this election was won/lost on living costs. The reasons are most likely not "rational", but more related to a wish to kick the incumbents out, to Trump using his reality TV show host entertainer skills and Biden pulling out of the race too late. Also Americans not wanting to have a female leader yet, maybe they're waiting for a bossy Latina or some Palin kind of cowgirl to persuade them.

If you know how to charm the masses, they'll vote for you even if they're a bit hungrier than last time. But it's harder to win that charm offensive when you've been in power for 4 years.
To me the image of voters sitting down and writing on paper rational reasonings for how they should vote is hillarious. Their minds have already decided whom they'll vote for before they'll rationalise it.

Do you really think the desire to not have a female president is more highly valued than do me and my family have enough to eat? It could just be that the last 2 female candidates weren't very good.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

@Goodspeed ’s recent post is, of course, the proper way to evaluate economic policy. However, this is easier said than done since (1) we can never observe the counterfactual, and (2) as @Sensei pointed out, much of the research in this area is highly partisan.

I think the main reason it's hard to do is that the economy is extremely complex and so are a lot of these laws that get passed during a president's term, as well as international trade deals, etc. Figuring out the actual effects of policies sounds really hard and time consuming. It's at least way above my pay grade. But we can make an attempt.

If there's interest in studying and discussing the economics literature on Trump's tax cuts or Obama's economic policies, I’d be happy to participate.

The first question is: How do we define economic success? This is already something we are unilkely to agree on I think. Your take?

Well, we can take a single metric, e.g. inflation-adjusted wage growth or GDP growth, which presumably we agree are important components of economic success. It will still be difficult to assess the affects of policies on just these quantities. We can try to read this paper, which Wikipedia cites to say the Trump Tax Cuts didn't have a big effect on economic growth or median wages:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.38.3.61

I don't care about GDP personally. I think it's okay as a long-term (decades) metric for growth, but in the short term it's affected too much by the success or failure of very large (tech) companies. Also, GDP growth doesn't always translate to better economic outcomes for people.

Real wage growth is more like it, but it doesn't fully take into account cost of living. It also doesn't take unemployment into account (as far as I know?) so we would need to add employment stats as well. Also, in the theoretical scenario where wages increase for 90% of the population but decrease for 10%, and that 10% happened to already be struggling and this puts them into poverty, it's going to lead to increases in crime and general instability, which I would say is economic failure.

Ultimately, in my view, we have to look at standards of living. How about the "social progress index"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Progress_Index

I agree to look at standard of living, but we need to look at an objective, quantitative, and easily measured metric for standard of living (or some aspect of it). E.g. the consumer price index (CPI) would be reasonable (obviously, there is more to standard of living than just the CPI).

The index you propose is an extremely broad and opaque average of 13 different things. There's no objective and quantitative metric for half of them. How are they computing a numeric score for "opportunity" or "foundations of wellbeing"? I'm sure they have a formula somewhere but there's no description on the wikipedia page, and it is going to be some sort of proxy or it's appropriateness will be subjective.

Evaluating the effects of a policy on something more simple like GDP growth or the CPI is already very hard as you say. It will be impossible to scientifically and rigorously to evaluate the effects on this index.

We shouldn't have any illusions about being rigorous, unless you want to spend weeks on this full time.

One way of doing it could be to take the 13 things that compose the index and rate a president's policy decisions on each of the 13, on a scale from 1 to 10. Then if our ratings are wildly different we can discuss why and hopefully gain some insights.

Of course, it's subjective. But the state of the economy is ultimately a subjective thing. I think the value in discussing this here is that we can give our subjective takes and discuss why we differ. For example, @Sensei mentioned that he thinks "Personal freedom" is higher in the US than in the UK, I don't agree and that could be a good discussion starter. It's a digression here because it's comparing different countries, but will probably also come up when discussing the effects of Trump's policies.