Report: Trump transition ordered government economists to cook up rosy growth forecasts
15 replies, posted
[quote]
As the White House staff tries to put together a budget for President Donald Trump, they face a fundamental problem. Trump has promised to cut taxes, increase spending on the military and infrastructure, and avoid cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The only way to do that without producing an exploding budget deficit is to assume a big increase in economic growth.
And Nick Timiraos at the Wall Street Journal reports that Trump is [URL="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-teams-growth-forecasts-far-rosier-than-those-of-cbo-private-economists-1487356278"]planning to do just that[/URL] — by making things up.
Deep into his story about Trump budget hijinks, Timiraos reveals that “what’s unusual about the administration’s forecasts isn’t just their relative optimism but also the process by which they were derived.” Specifically, what’s unusual about them is that they weren’t derived by any process at all. Instead of letting economists build a forecast, Trump’s budget was put together with “transition officials telling the CEA staff the growth targets that their budget would produce and asking them to backfill other estimates off those figures.”[/quote]
[url]http://www.vox.com/2017/2/17/14651208/trump-budget-forecast[/url]
he's just applying what he learnt from running his companies, I bet
"I'm a good businessman, guys! Honest!"
[QUOTE=archangel125;51846293]"I'm a good businessman, guys! Honest!"[/QUOTE]
If I hear that from another person around me, I'm going to burst a testicle.
I seriously have heard that over 500 times in the last few months, over why he's fit to lead.
Spoilers, this is a country, not a company.
Fucking fools.
Should be a lesson to all readers that you can make data fit any claim if you want to.
So, two things.
First, I want to point out that this story is second-hand reporting, with it's [B]only[/B] source, the Wallstreet Journal, being behind a paywall. In this way, I have doubts as to the accuracy and proportion of what's being reported.
Second, I want to get to the bottom of something.
Either:
Trump inherited an economy with problems, that was stagnating and showing precursor signs of failure
or
Trump inherited an economy that was good, that was about to pick up, that was on the verge of bounding back
I want to know which it is. I want to point out that in a previous thread reporting economic success, people quickly swarmed to jerk off Barack Obama, saying things like, "It generally takes about 6 months to influence the economy" and so on.
Because it's not as if the Obama administration wasn't busy blasting it's own horn about economic success and recovery. When Trump took over, did all of that suddenly change? Did the figures suddenly invert themselves, and now all of the reporting in the same trend is clearly propaganda for Donald Drumpf and the Trumpets?
I'm skeptical.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51846376]So, two things.
First, I want to point out that this story is second-hand reporting, with it's [B]only[/B] source, the Wallstreet Journal, being behind a paywall. In this way, I have doubts as to the accuracy and proportion of what's being reported.
Second, I want to get to the bottom of something.
Either:
Trump inherited an economy with problems, that was stagnating and showing precursor signs of failure
or
Trump inherited an economy that was good, that was about to pick up, that was on the verge of bounding back
I want to know which it is. I want to point out that in a previous thread reporting economic success, people quickly swarmed to jerk off Barack Obama, saying things like, "It generally takes about 6 months to influence the economy" and so on.
Because it's not as if the Obama administration wasn't busy blasting it's own horn about economic success and recovery. When Trump took over, did all of that suddenly change? Did the figures suddenly invert themselves, and now all of the reporting in the same trend is clearly propaganda for Donald Drumpf and the Trumpets?
I'm skeptical.[/QUOTE]
So wait, are you asking if people are saying the economy is on its way down just because Trump is in even though he hasn't done anything?
What I get from the article is:
The economy is growing but Trump's plan is way too aggressive for the current rate so they had to make it seem even better.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51846376]I want to know which it is. I want to point out that in a previous thread reporting economic success, people quickly swarmed to jerk off Barack Obama, saying things like, "It generally takes about 6 months to influence the economy" and so on.
Because it's not as if the Obama administration wasn't busy blasting it's own horn about economic success and recovery. When Trump took over, did all of that suddenly change? Did the figures suddenly invert themselves, and now all of the reporting in the same trend is clearly propaganda for Donald Drumpf and the Trumpets?
I'm skeptical.[/QUOTE]
growth is a slow and steady product of time and it's nigh impossible to quantify any of it as trump's doing with how little time he's spent in office. However, [I]collapse [/I]is something that can just fuck you right up in short order if (for instance) he ends up breaking alliances with our country's major trade partners and otherwise shedding the US in a negative light with the rest of the global economic superpowers
the republicans were also shitting on obama for not instantly fixing the economy when he was handed the economic depression in 2008, that took some time to pull out of the nosedive and start growing again
[t]https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CC887_GDP_9U_20140926092711.jpg[/t]
back on the point of the article though, yeah the point is that instead of letting professionals show how his plan is going to work out, it sounds like he just paid people to do his usual boasting of "It's great! It's so great and we're doing great because of it!" without backing it up. It's disingenuous at best and insidious at worst because it could be masking something that'll fuck us all over if we aren't prepared
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51846376]So, two things.
First, I want to point out that this story is second-hand reporting, with it's [B]only[/B] source, the Wallstreet Journal, being behind a paywall. In this way, I have doubts as to the accuracy and proportion of what's being reported.[/QUOTE]
You can get around the paywall via google
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51846376]So, two things.
First, I want to point out that this story is second-hand reporting, with it's [B]only[/B] source, the Wallstreet Journal, being behind a paywall. In this way, I have doubts as to the accuracy and proportion of what's being reported.
I'm skeptical.[/QUOTE]
Its the wall street journal, one of the most unbiased and well researched papers in the world and you would have to try damn hard to prove them wrong.
It's also well worth the subscription fee.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;51846583]Its the wall street journal, one of the most unbiased and well researched papers in the world and you would have to try damn hard to prove them wrong.
It's also well worth the subscription fee.[/QUOTE]
1- using paywall sites doesn't help on FP, should find another source. If it sounds sensational and requires you buy into it, and you can't find it anywhere else, approach with caution
2- there was the shit about pewdiepie in recent times that seemed to have been blatant clickbait/character assassination on the part of the writer, so I don't blame people in gaming communities for being a bit skeptical of the site
[QUOTE=dai;51846594]1- using paywall sites doesn't help on FP, should find another source. If it sounds sensational and requires you buy into it, and you can't find it anywhere else, approach with caution
2- there was the shit about pewdiepie in recent times that seemed to have been blatant clickbait/character assassination on the part of the writer, so I don't blame people in gaming communities for being a bit skeptical of the site[/QUOTE]
We should cite Breitbart instead
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;51846298]If I hear that from another person around me, I'm going to burst a testicle.
[/QUOTE]
you have the weirdest kinks
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51846621]We should cite Breitbart instead[/QUOTE]
Definitely not
But the WSJ is at the very least, very deserving of criticism based on their behaviour regarding Pewdiepie. Much of what they did is arguably libel.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51846350]Should be a lesson to all readers that you can make data fit any claim if you want to.[/QUOTE]
no no not make data fit any claim
more like you can make [B]up[/B] data to fit your claim.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;51846298]If I hear that from another person around me, I'm going to burst a testicle.
I seriously have heard that over 500 times in the last few months, over why he's fit to lead.
Spoilers, this is a country, not a company.
Fucking fools.[/QUOTE]
To someone that cannot read, the squiggles of 'country' and 'company' probably look pretty similar.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.