Posted on 11/30/2017 7:30:41 AM PST by grayhog
With the political world deeply focused on the question of whether the Trump administration comprises a gang of Russian pawns, less attention has been devoted to more mundane questions, such as what ever happened to Trump’s economic policy?
As it happens, economists are keeping their eye on that ball, and their conclusion is that it’s in a bad way. More specifically, they recognize that Trump’s policy is aimed heavily at achieving annual economic growth of more than 3%...
The U.S. hasn’t had sustained real annual growth (that is, over inflation) of better than 3% since the 1990s, with a brief spurt in 2004 and 2005. Making up the difference from 2% to more than 3% looks like a pipe dream.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The author's byline is "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik writes a daily blog appearing on latimes.com. His business column appears in print every Sunday, and occasionally on other days."
#winning
YAY!!!!!!!!!
I am glad they said this.
Because they’ve been 100% wrong so far.
Was it the LA Times that said HilLIARy had a 98% chance of winning?
Q1 GDP (Partly Obama’s) = 1.2%, Q2 17 GDP = 3.1%, Q3 17 GDP = 3.3%.
I’m now guessing Trump will reach 4% GDP in Q4 17.
I seem to remember similar statements made to cover the incompetence and simple minded approach of the 0bama regime, while they were telling us the "new normal" could be no better than 2%.
God forbid anyone in America should dream of a better America.
The author has penis envy.....
That article didn’t age well...
Pedal to the metal, baby!
Great re posting!
Again, the LA Slimes and its mediot/idiots pretending to be experts, were wrong again about President Trump.
Exactly
That ChiCom pawn?
BTW, the bulk of the left would have no problem with Russian influence if they were still Soviet. Want proof Russia has turned it’s back on communism? The attitudes of the class of American useful idiots.
I have long maintained that if Econ 101 was taught as a mandatory high school class it would be the end of the democratic party. Most people don’t have a clue.
Lots of investments in oil, pipelines (steel), LNG and raw materials for the chemical industry (based on low energy costs and abundant supplies of gas)
Expect consistent GDP north of 4%
“I seem to remember similar statements made to cover the incompetence and simple minded approach of the 0bama regime, while they were telling us the “new normal” could be no better than 2%. “
It wasn’t incompetence, it was socialism and community organizing. When Obama fired the CEO of GM, forced the “secured” bond holders into an inferior position and gave part of the company to the UAW, he upset 200 years of settled law and precedent. Corporate America took their $15 trillion in cash off the table and sat on it until Obama was gone. Now that the rule of law is back and socialism, is, for the time being, in abeyance, business has brought their chips back to the table and are in play again. Eight years of needed growth and development are fast-forwarding. Not only will be get whatever the “natural rate” of growth would have been, given the economic conditions, but we get growth that didn’t happen but needed to happen during Obama’s abysmal years. Yes, winning!
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik...
—
Pulitzer Prize winning? What? Out of a Cracker Jack box? This clown writes like a pouty five year old.
CNBC just now -
The Dow Jones industrial average rose 120 points, breaking above 24,000 for the first time, with Goldman Sachs leading advancers on the 30-stock index.
The S&P 500 reached an all-time high at the open, advancing 0.4 percent, with information technology among the best-performing sectors.
Yep. Because Barky couldn’t do it, it can’t be done.
Liberal logic 101
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.