Politics

[NE 7x57]

View attachment 644916
Inflation rate is a positive as it has been going down. Same for unemployment.

View attachment 644917

The GDP is soaring as well. So, I don't know where you are getting the data that economic trends are pointing to bad things on horizon.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/25/1226811891/economy-gdp-recession-growth-interest-rates-inflation-federal-reserve#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20economy%20continues%20to%20defy%20expectations.%20The,to%20a%20report%20Thursday%20from%20the%20Commerce%20Department.

While the monthly rate of inflation has decreased many of the goods and services that skyrocketed in price in 2020 have stayed at those levels. A quick walk through the supermarket confirms this.

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[Alistair]

While the monthly rate of inflation has decreased many of the goods and services that skyrocketed in price in 2020 have stayed at those levels. A quick walk through the supermarket confirms this.

They will continue to do so. Unless of course, you expect that those pay rises you got 2020-2024 are also going to disappear?

Inflation happens. It always happens, the only thing that changes is the rate of change, which is dropping. As @Tanks data shows, it's now back to the levels we saw during Trump's first term, when we were perfectly content at 2.5 - 3%ish.

If you expect Trump to somehow engineer deflation if he's elected, you'll be sorely disappointed, especially with his stupid tariff ideas.

I'm sure it's a great disappointment to the Trump crowd, but the economy ain't doing badly right now. I'm not convinced that'll continue, and I expect Harris will get blamed for the recession if it happens, whilst if it's Trump you'll blame 'circumstances outside his control'.

In all honesty, I don't really think that whoever is president for 4 years really has a great deal of influence on economic performance, much as they like to claim they (or their opponent) do.

Data to back up my point:

Inflation and unemployment 1948-2024. No real difference by administration.

GDP Growth. No real difference by administration.

Government debt. No real difference by administration.

Far as I can tell, the main difference between Rep & Dem on this topic, is that the R's talk a better game. The actual impact on the economy seems pretty inconsequential. Makes sense really, most of the factors influencing US economic performance are not in the control of the US government, and those levers they can pull are going to be pulled in basically the same way whoever is nominally in charge. Just for different reasons.

The only notable exceptions here seems to be Reagan, and perhaps Clinton, who by all the metrics do genuinely seem to have made some positive impact. Whether that was a case of 'right person for the job', or simply 'person getting elected at the right time to take credit' is unclear of course. Certainly nobody since seems to have done anything meaningful to the general trend.

 

[Dirtdart]

That is not what I wrote.

This is not the one in question

 

[Mekaniks]

 

[Saul]

This is not the one in question

Now I am very confused.

 

[Brent in Az]

I think a perfect storm is brewing.

 

[sgt_zim]

They will continue to do so. Unless of course, you expect that those pay rises you got 2020-2024 are also going to disappear?

View attachment 644918

Inflation happens. It always happens, the only thing that changes is the rate of change, which is dropping. As @Tanks data shows, it's now back to the levels we saw during Trump's first term, when we were perfectly content at 2.5 - 3%ish.

If you expect Trump to somehow engineer deflation if he's elected, you'll be sorely disappointed, especially with his stupid tariff ideas.

I'm sure it's a great disappointment to the Trump crowd, but the economy ain't doing badly right now. I'm not convinced that'll continue, and I expect Harris will get blamed for the recession if it happens, whilst if it's Trump you'll blame 'circumstances outside his control'.

In all honesty, I don't really think that whoever is president for 4 years really has a great deal of influence on economic performance, much as they like to claim they (or their opponent) do.

Data to back up my point:

Inflation and unemployment 1948-2024. No real difference by administration.

View attachment 644919
GDP Growth. No real difference by administration.
View attachment 644920

Government debt. No real difference by administration.
View attachment 644921

Far as I can tell, the main difference between Rep & Dem on this topic, is that the R's talk a better game. The actual impact on the economy seems pretty inconsequential. Makes sense really, most of the factors influencing US economic performance are not in the control of the US government, and those levers they can pull are going to be pulled in basically the same way whoever is nominally in charge. Just for different reasons.

The only notable exceptions here seems to be Reagan, and perhaps Clinton, who by all the metrics do genuinely seem to have made some positive impact. Whether that was a case of 'right person for the job', or simply 'person getting elected at the right time to take credit' is unclear of course. Certainly nobody since seems to have done anything meaningful to the general trend.

Whose pay increases kept up? The missus and I both earn nice 6-figure salaries. Without having made adjustments to our spending, our saving/investment would be suffering relative to where we were 4 years ago. The one thing keeping us within spitting distance of where we were 4 years ago is that we both work remotely. If not, I'd probably have a new truck note (my 2013 F150 has 140K miles on it, with only putting about 6K miles/year on it in the last 4 years) + $400/month in additional fuel + $15/day in tolls to get to my office.

By any standard, we are well off, and we're feeling the pinch. I can't imagine having to slog through this shit where I was 15 years ago.

 

[Ed Lally]

Is GDP in current dollars? If so, it should be up at least 20% due to inflation alone. There are liars, damn liars and statisticians. Many stores are closing due to theft. Profit margins are 2-5% in many stores and “shrinkage” (spoilage and THEFT) are now exceeding 6-8% in many inner city markets.

 

[Alistair]

Is GDP in current dollars? If so, it should be up at least 20% due to inflation alone. There are liars, damn liars and statisticians. Many stores are closing due to theft. Profit margins are 2-5% in many stores and “shrinkage” (spoilage and THEFT) are now exceeding 6-8% in many inner city markets.

It's 'real' GDP, so inflation adjusted.

 

[Red Leg]

After roughly two-weeks of polls generally sliding a little in Trump's direction, those over the last 48 hours or so have begun to swing the needle back toward Harris. This seems to have been precipitated by a Selzer & Co. poll released yesterday which had Trump behind in Iowa (!?!) by four points and Trump leads tightening to nothing across the swing states and particularly Georgia. This was followed by the final New York Times/Siena College poll which again seemed to show a similar change in momentum. Both of these polls are considered something of the gold standard in that admittedly fragile industry. Nate Silver offers a interesting detailed breakdown. If behind a paywall, sorry.

A shocking Iowa poll means somebody is going to be wrong

Either Ann Selzer and the New York Times, or the rest of the polling industry.

www.natesilver.net

This possible trend is also suddenly reflected in the betting markets where Trump's winning likelihood has suddenly dropped from nearly a 65% chance of winning to 55% and continues to slide.

Presidential Election Winner 2024

Polymarket | This market will resolve to “Yes” if Donald J. Trump wins the 2024 US Presidential Election. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.” The r...

polymarket.com

As of this evening, Silver now gives Trump a very slim winning advantage in the electoral college of 51.5% (odds not votes). He shows a national vote prediction of 48.5% for Harris and 47,6% for Trump.

Needless to say, the Harris campaign has been trumpeting this as a major change in final momentum late last night and throughout the day.

If the polls are as inaccurate with respect to Trump now as they were in '16 and '20, then this will still be a Trump victory - perhaps an electoral landslide. On the other hand, if those polling organizations have indeed perfected their ability to account for the "shy" Trump voter, then we are likely in for a long week.

Probably the best thing for the country would be a decisive win by either presidential candidate and a senate firmly in republican hands. The House will finish wherever it finishes.

This, again from Silver, provides a really good analysis of what polls are and are not telling us 48 hours from the actual election. It is worth noting that Silver tends to spin to the left, but the math is pretty nonpartisan.

The polls are close, but that doesn’t mean the results will be

A normal polling error in either direction could give either candidate a decisive victory.

www.natesilver.net

 

[steve white]

They will continue to do so. Unless of course, you expect that those pay rises you got 2020-2024 are also going to disappear?

View attachment 644918

Inflation happens. It always happens, the only thing that changes is the rate of change, which is dropping. As @Tanks data shows, it's now back to the levels we saw during Trump's first term, when we were perfectly content at 2.5 - 3%ish.

If you expect Trump to somehow engineer deflation if he's elected, you'll be sorely disappointed, especially with his stupid tariff ideas.

I'm sure it's a great disappointment to the Trump crowd, but the economy ain't doing badly right now. I'm not convinced that'll continue, and I expect Harris will get blamed for the recession if it happens, whilst if it's Trump you'll blame 'circumstances outside his control'.

In all honesty, I don't really think that whoever is president for 4 years really has a great deal of influence on economic performance, much as they like to claim they (or their opponent) do.

Data to back up my point:

Inflation and unemployment 1948-2024. No real difference by administration.

View attachment 644919
GDP Growth. No real difference by administration.
View attachment 644920

Government debt. No real difference by administration.
View attachment 644921

Far as I can tell, the main difference between Rep & Dem on this topic, is that the R's talk a better game. The actual impact on the economy seems pretty inconsequential. Makes sense really, most of the factors influencing US economic performance are not in the control of the US government, and those levers they can pull are going to be pulled in basically the same way whoever is nominally in charge. Just for different reasons.

The only notable exceptions here seems to be Reagan, and perhaps Clinton, who by all the metrics do genuinely seem to have made some positive impact. Whether that was a case of 'right person for the job', or simply 'person getting elected at the right time to take credit' is unclear of course. Certainly nobody since seems to have done anything meaningful to the general trend.

Your chart still shows the level of debt in trillions is exponential. Lets not act like that level of debt is normal, especially not historically. That chart is scary, and does not bode well for repayment if interest rates rise much at all. May be a better chart shows how few trillions were owed in the 60's-80's.

 

[Alistair]

Your chart still shows the level of debt in trillions is exponential. Lets not act like that level of debt is normal, especially not historically. That chart is scary, and does not bode well for repayment if interest rates rise much at all. May be a better chart shows how few trillions were owed in the 60's-80's.

Oh, I agree.

Yes, good point on timescale, here's a wider view, although this time using %GDP, not dollars as on reflection that seems a more useful scale, especially over longer time periods.

The current levels are not 'normal', it is a big problem, it is all going to go horribly wrong unless addressed.

My point though is that expecting Trump to do any better than Harris at sorting that out, has no historical basis. After all, pre-pandemic, Trump did no better than Obama on this topic, then he signed a load of pandemic stuff into law to make things worse. Hardly the actions of a fiscal conservative with a sincere desire to sort the problem. Luckily for him, he did so in 2020, then didn't get re-elected which made it easy to blame it on Biden.

Of course, Bush did rather worse than Clinton, but Obama did worse than Bush, so... probably wider macro-economic stuff here and our dear leaders are merely along for the ride. I certainly can't blame Trump for COVID after all, a factor that increased national debt far more than any action his administration took. Same for the '08 crash with Obama, to be fair.

The current levels of national debt is a problem brought about by R administrations just as much as D ones, and whilst R candidates may claim to be able to sort it better than D candidates, they never have in the past.

Just the same story with inflation, or unemployment, or GDP growth. We can agree they may be doing well or not well, but if your position is that the R's will do any better than the D's either way, that's where our positions differ. There simply isn't any historical precedent to support such a claim.

I'd note that of US Presidents that have actually reduced US nationals debt, we have 1948-1970, so Truman (D), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), and then 1992-2000, so Clinton (D)... not a strong showing for the R's, although once again, the factors were pretty much 100% outside of their control either way.

 

[Tanks]

Your chart still shows the level of debt in trillions is exponential. Lets not act like that level of debt is normal, especially not historically. That chart is scary, and does not bode well for repayment if interest rates rise much at all. May be a better chart shows how few trillions were owed in the 60's-80's.

Both GOP and Democrats overspend and add to the national debt. The difference is on what.

 

[LivingTheDream]

After roughly two-weeks of polls generally sliding a little in Trump's direction, those over the last 48 hours or so have begun to swing the needle back toward Harris. This seems to have been precipitated by a Selzer & Co. poll released yesterday which had Trump behind in Iowa (!?!) by four points and Trump leads tightening to nothing across the swing states and particularly Georgia. This was followed by the final New York Times/Siena College poll which again seemed to show a similar change in momentum. Both of these polls are considered something of the gold standard in that admittedly fragile industry. Nate Silver offers a interesting detailed breakdown. If behind a paywall, sorry.

A shocking Iowa poll means somebody is going to be wrong

Either Ann Selzer and the New York Times, or the rest of the polling industry.

www.natesilver.net

This possible trend is also suddenly reflected in the betting markets where Trump's winning likelihood has suddenly dropped from nearly a 65% chance of winning to 55% and continues to slide.

Presidential Election Winner 2024

Polymarket | This market will resolve to “Yes” if Donald J. Trump wins the 2024 US Presidential Election. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.” The r...

polymarket.com

As of this evening, Silver now gives Trump a very slim winning advantage in the electoral college of 51.5% (odds not votes). He shows a national vote prediction of 48.5% for Harris and 47,6% for Trump.

Needless to say, the Harris campaign has been trumpeting this as a major change in final momentum late last night and throughout the day.

If the polls are as inaccurate with respect to Trump now as they were in '16 and '20, then this will still be a Trump victory - perhaps an electoral landslide. On the other hand, if those polling organizations have indeed perfected their ability to account for the "shy" Trump voter, then we are likely in for a long week.

Probably the best thing for the country would be a decisive win by either presidential candidate and a senate firmly in republican hands. The House will finish wherever it finishes.

This, again from Silver, provides a really good analysis of what polls are and are not telling us 48 hours from the actual election. It is worth noting that Silver tends to spin to the left, but the math is pretty nonpartisan.

The polls are close, but that doesn’t mean the results will be

A normal polling error in either direction could give either candidate a decisive victory.

www.natesilver.net

I believe I said last week I was afraid Trump was peaking too early. But there is a bunch of conflicting data still to this day, that I'm not 100% sure if being accounted for.

I do want to start that poll out of Iowa is atrocious and if it isn't even close to accurate Kamala will win with 350+ electoral votes. I mean ridiculous bizarre voting patterns.

So actual data that might be telling the story which I believe is coming out of NC (but might have been PA or GA, but it was a swing state). First time voters are +19 for Trump, however people who decided in the last 24 hours of voting are +20 Kamala.

Early voting has been better for Republicans, but will still need to see if this just vote banking or if it will make an actual difference.

Nate Silver has come out and stated he doesn't believe any of the polls, but his staffer did write a nice article though.

 

[Saul]

I genuinely have no idea how this election will go. In my little bubble, folks are fairly certain of a Trump win, but it is quite a Trumpy bubble to begin with so it is truly hard to gauge it. Personally, I think Harris might squeak out a win, but I would not be willing to put money on it.

 

[Brent in Az]

Listening to Kamala is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Here is some things I would look for once the polls close.

If the voting percentage is 55% women, go to bed Kamala is the next president. If 50/50, go to bed Trump is the next president.

If those younger then 29 make up a larger percentage compared to 2020, and especially males under 29, go to bed Trump is the next president.

Watch Virginia, if they call Virginia early with Kamala winning by more than 10 points, go to bed Kamala is the next president.

Other than that, I imagine it will be a long night.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Real inflation is at 20% or more over the last four years. I had an alternator go south in my Silverado. Returned it for a warranted replacement. I paid $143 for it 9/22, cost now, 11/01 is $201, My calculator pegs that at 40%. I believe most anyone with a half a brain doesn't buy the governments CPI.

 

[Hogpatrol]

While the monthly rate of inflation has decreased many of the goods and services that skyrocketed in price in 2020 have stayed at those levels. A quick walk through the supermarket confirms this.

I do the grocery shopping. Use to spend $150 for a week's worth. Now it's $240+. That's 60% in four years. More like Slidenomics than Bidenomics. I swear listening to these Dems talk is like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone. What fkn planet do they live on.