This thread title is an updated variation of the phrase "The economy, stupid," which James Carville coined as a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush.

According to Investopedia, Trumponomics describes the economic policies of President Donald Trump, who won the November 8, 2016 presidential election on the back of bold economic promises to cut personal and corporate taxes, restructure trade deals, and introduce large fiscal stimulus measures focused on infrastructure and defense.  Trump's chief political strategist, Steve Bannon, has summed up these policies as "economic nationalism."  Most pundits will defer to the shorthand of Trumponomics. 

As with any U.S. president, Trump's fortunes will rise and fall on the strength of the domestic economy, over which he has only partial control.  Indeed, a president's economic success is often as much a matter of luck as it is a matter of his fiscal policy.  Where America happens to be in the economic and market cycles at the time of his inauguration has as much--if not, more--bearing on his success or failure as any domestic policies he might get enacted into law.  Consider Herbert Hoover, who, for all his vast experience and business acumen, had the poor, dumb luck to come into office right as a speculative stock market was headed for a crash.  Like Trump, he had similarly ambitious programs, but the twin tsunamis of a bear market and banking crisis overwhelmed Hoover's attempts to revive the economy.  Bill Clinton, by contrast, assumed office after a mild recession, and benefited immensely from the dot.com boom over which he had little influence.  In the case of "Boomerang Bill," as I like to call him, it's more apt to say that he presided over a long-running recovery rather than engineering it through economic policy.   

Trump recently proclaimed, "To be honest, I inherited a mess.”  In some respects, that may be true.  But if we consider GDP, the U.S. unemployment rate, not to mention market trends (equities, real estate), Trump has very little to complain about and so much to fear.  The economy is grinding along (albeit below its long-term average), and the stock market is booming, the latest rally of which can be properly attributed to "great expectations" about the salutary effects of Trumponomics, though it should be said that the stock market seems to be "getting well out over its skis" in the short run.

So let's start the discussion first by countering Trump's claim that he inherited a mess.  He hasn't, though there's room for improvement, as pointed out in this article:

"The Economy Trump Inherited, in Two Charts"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...two-charts

And FactCheck.org provided a more detailed glimpse of the economy that Trump inherited.

"What President Trump Inherits"
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/what-pr...-inherits/

All in all, the economy is in pretty good shape, though there are worrying signs.  In addition, there is the omen of history, which is why Trump has much to fear.  He's raised expectations sky-high, not least among his supporters.  History has not been kind to Republican presidents: recessions are much more common during their terms in office, with the notable exception of Ronald Reagan, whose timing could not have been more fortuitous.  (And as I have previously noted, there's certainly something to be said for timing.)

I would liken the economy that Trump has inherited to a baton that is passed during a relay race, a race that I would characterize as a race against time.  I say that because so many of the voters that switched their allegiance from Democrats to Republicans in this past presidential election gave essentially the same answer when asked how much time they were willing to give Trump: "Two years." 

That speaks volumes about the "patience" of many desperate Americans.  The worst of the financial crisis was blunted, and the policies of Obama made up some of the ground, but not enough.  Trump may well sprint to the finish line, or he could stumble badly.  Time will tell.  For now, Trumponomics is taking shape, and experts are already weighing in on the potential benefits--and pitfalls--of his economic proposals.  I have my own instincts that I will comment on later...

We are truly in a 4th turning now, and what everyone wants, whether they know it or not, is a huge crisis, a massive conflict big enough to bring the country together.  People aren't aware of what they want, though; it's under the surface, never truly looked at or acknowledged.

Democrats want a war with Russia.  Hillary Clinton was prepared to take us there, and Democrats are frustrated by Donald Trump's foiling of this plan.  They're now hoping to find or manufacture evidence of ties between Trump and Russia which will allow them to remove Trump from office and put someone in his place who will bring the war about.

Republicans want the removal of all Muslims from the U.S. and western europe, the deportation of all Mexicans living in the U.S. illegally, the end of all Mexican immigration, and the end of multiculturalism.  There's the possibility of the deportation of the entire mexican american population, and if the above doesn't create enough drama, they will want a war with China.

Almost no one knows yet that this is what they want, but it's what they will attempt to bring about, given the chance.

For those who are confused by my statements about Democrats and Russia:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-...mir-putin/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/opinions/p...ir-ghitis/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...Trump.html

For the GI Generation, Betty Freidan 

For Xer Anderson Cooper. 


Any other examples come to mind?

In this 4T, everything sounds like a garbled mess on the radio.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/ge...dia-235430

Also reveals Bush family voted for any one but Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain...79f55ae791

Quote:The headlines this month have been alarming. “Steve Bannon’s obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome” (Business Insider). “Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable” (the Huffington Post). “Steve Bannon Wants To Start World War III” (the Nation). A common thread in these media reports is that President Trump’s chief strategist is an avid reader and that the book that most inspires his worldview is “The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy.”

I wrote that book with William Strauss back in 1997. It is true that Bannon is enthralled by it. In 2010, he released a documentary, “Generation Zero,” that is structured around our theory that history in America (and by extension, most other modern societies) unfolds in a recurring cycle of four-generation-long eras. While this cycle does include a time of civic and political crisis — a Fourth Turning, in our parlance — the reporting on the book has been absurdly apocalyptic.

I don’t know Bannon well. I have worked with him on several film projects, including “Generation Zero,” over the years. I’ve been impressed by his cultural savvy. His politics, while unusual, never struck me as offensive. I was surprised when he took over the leadership of Breitbart and promoted the views espoused on that site. Like many people, I first learned about the alt-right (a far-right movement with links to Breitbart and a loosely defined white-nationalist agenda) from the mainstream media. Strauss, who died in 2007, and I never told Bannon what to say or think. But we did perhaps provide him with an insight — that populism, nationalism and state-run authoritarianism would soon be on the rise, not just in America but around the world. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain...79f55ae791

Here is a chart of Federal deficit since 1950.  Democratic and Republican administrations (lagged one year) are colored in blue and red, respectively. The reason for the lag is that incoming president inherits an economy and budget from his predecessor.  His policies enacted in his first year won't really have an impact on the statistics until the next year.


The chart clearly shows that both parties sought to keep the budget fairly close to balanced for the first 25 years in the chart. Average deficits during that time were 0.7% of GDP. Inflation averaged 3% and wage growth was strong.  After our "friends" the Saudis hiked oil prices 300% the budget went out of control, deficits rose to 2.7% and inflation soared to 9.1%. Conventional economics was clear on the issue, deficits needed to be brought under control as the economy recovered.  This could be done with tax increases (e.g. restore the 1968 surtax, cancelled by Nixon in 1970, or pass the necessary payroll tax increases to put that program back into solvency, as Reagan later did) or with spending cuts (future presidents found stuff to cut, why not then?). 

Well, they didn't. Hence Carter placed Volcker as Fed Chief, who promised to pursue inflation control through extreme interest rate policy, which works by suppressing wage growth, reducing wage-push inflation.  High inflation meant the wage increases workers were getting in the late seventies did not keep up with inflation, real wages fell 0.4% per year over that period (see table).  The Volcker policy was successful.  Inflation was moderated despite the enormous deficits run over the 1980's and early 1990's.  As expected, wages continue to fall at a good clip.  When Clinton was president, a determined effort was made to balance the budget, which was successful.  Positive wage growth was restored, with wage growth 1.6 percentage points higher than the prior era and 1.3 points higher than the subsequent period. After the start of the new century, we went back to running big deficits again.  And wage growth has fallen as expected.


Summary Table
Period     Deficit/GDP   Wage Growth   Inflation
1950-1974     0.7                 2.1                   3.0
1975-1981     2.7                -0.4                   9.1
1982-1993     4.1                -0.5                   3.9
1994-2001     0.1                 1.1                   2.6
2002-2016     4.2                -0.2                   2.0
Wages here are unskilled wage rates from Measuring Worth.

I think we can put accounts of protesters shouting down Republican politicians in town halls and other public venues into one thread.  First to get the dubious honor in this thread is Senator Joni Ernst, junior Republican Senator from Iowa. At a veteran's meeting in Maquoketa, protesters shouted "Your last term!" in unison, drowning out applause for her.

She's up for re-election in 2020. An extremist in a moderate state, she should be vulnerable in a high-turnout election.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/your-la...town-hall/

I ran into this rather terrifying article. More scary octopus tentacles involving both Steve Bannon and Russia undermining Western democracy.

Ever since I was in high school it seems Boomers have been clamoring that things would lead to chaos. They'll say, "There would be chaos if people did whatever they wanted". They claim that there would be chaos if people went naked in public, that there would be chaos if girls were allowed to show their navels in class, that there would be chaos if kids were allowed to keep their hats on in class, that there would be chaos if marijuana were legal, that there would be chaos if people were allowed to scream if they were angry, or even, "There would be chaos if men could marry other men".

Chaos is clearly the bogeyman of Boomer and Joneser social conservatives. So I wonder, what exactly would this hypothetical "chaos" they speak of look like if it were to finally break out? People running in all firections screaming and bumping into each other while fire broke out and demons and giant worms came out of the middle of the Earth? It's hard to picture...and would things really be this terrible?

It's odd because when Boomers and Jonesers were raising us Gen-Yers they didn't teach us to value "order" or to fear "chaos". It seemed to start when Gen-Yers got into high school.

This question is especially for you Boomer and Joneser conservatives. What exactly are you so afraid of happening? -Craig