President Trump- The Implications

[Conan71]

Well, Trump's tariffs on aluminum and steel are creating at least 800 new jobs.  #Winning!

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/news/companies/trump-tariffs-steel-jobs/index.html

Of course that gets diluted with the possibility of 25K or more job cuts due to the higher steel prices, not to mention threatened retaliatory tariffs from other trading partners.

Reading a lot of the fall-out from this from various sources leads one to believe economic experts are throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping two years later their prediction ends up giving them credibility.

I honestly have no idea where this is going, but history shows it has not ended well when we start sticking it to our trading partners.  If Trump wanted to punish China only for steel and aluminum dumping, these actions need to be directed at China alone not all our other global trading partners.  Yes, I am aware that Mexico and Canada appear to have been given exemptions from these tariffs, but the EU has not and they are threatening retaliation.

[cannon_fodder]

Really good jobs report this morning.  The best since Trump took office and so good it may be an unsustainable pace, that is to say we businesses should theoretically start having difficulty finding workers if we keep this up.  Economists say there is still slack in labor participation, hence the unemployment stayed at 4.1%, but that's already lower than they want.  This isn't a knock on Trump, just pure economics.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

Which makes the wage numbers really hard to understand.  As a lagging indicator it made sense for the first few years under Obama as the economy started to get back on its feet.  But we've been on a steady 88 month recovery now (BLS job numbers)... with wage growth that may be lagging inflation during that period (negative actual wage growth).  Even as employees  are harder to find, employers don't seem to be willing to pay them more.  Even as profits rise and the market booms, employers don't seem willing to pay workers more.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf

On a longer  term trend, wages have been detached from efficiency since the mid 1970s.  Up until then the post war era saw production efficiency correlated nearly perfectly with worker wages.  More recently, there has been essentially no correlation.  Whether a worker produces more or not seems to have little macro correlation on wages.
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

Which helps explains the wealth gap. The USA is generating more wealth than ever before, $17 Trillion dollars.  Corporate profits are at record highs.  Corporate effective tax rates are at record lows for the modern era.  Yet the average American family saw their wealth peek in the 1970s and in spite of the prevalence of 2 worker families, real family net worth is not growing.  Much of the wealth is being concentrated.
(my standard speech:  wealth concentration isn't a hippy feel good issue.  Rather its a matter of macro economics.  Very wealthy people can only consume so much, while middle income people tend to increase consumption with increased wages.  People struggling to make ends meet do not pay doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, real estate agents, home builders, purchase new cars, or start new businesses.  I have no desire to "punish" or take anything away from wealthy people, but the rules of the game currently are not reaching a result likely to generate the maximum amount of wealth for the nation as a whole. The current trend is bad in the long run for the Country as a whole. Subtle changes now could help shift that trend in the long term)
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp
http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wealth-gap-america/
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP

Essentially, we have plenty of jobs - but they aren't paying very well and our economy may outstrip our available workforce.

We have plenty of money - but it is being concentrated at the top and not finding its way to workers.


The Trump administration did not cause any of these problems and solid growth continues under it.  But the admin policies don't seem to even try to address the macro and long term issues with the economy.  In fact, they seemed likely to exacerbate them. 

[cannon_fodder]

On the tariff issue:  Brazil has threatened to cut its coal imports from the USA... which it uses to make steel, which it them exports to the USA.  Something like $1 billion in USA coal exports go to Brazil.

Its almost like this global economy thing is as complicated as healthcare...who knew?

[swake]

Here's the basic math.

140,000 people in the US work in the steel industry and we produce most of our own steel.

6.5 million people in the US work in industries that rely on steel. Making steel more expensive makes the products those people produce more expensive, both in the domestic market and for export. It hurts US competitiveness vs goods produced in other countries and raises costs for US consumers.

How is this remotely a good idea?

[BKDotCom]

How is this remotely a good idea?

Tough love.
Steel shows up late for practice, everyone does laps.  It builds the team.  
Step it up steel.  Everyone's counting on you.
/s

[Townsend]

Guess Who Knows Both President Trump And Kim Jong Un?

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/09/592231729/guess-who-knows-both-president-trump-and-kim-jong-un

[heironymouspasparagus]

Tough love.
Steel shows up late for practice, everyone does laps.  It builds the team.  
Step it up steel.  Everyone's counting on you.
/s

Except for the reality of everyone who knows anything about economics and trade saying it's a bad idea....  except for the know-nothing guy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

On the tariff issue:  Brazil has threatened to cut its coal imports from the USA... which it uses to make steel, which it them exports to the USA.  Something like $1 billion in USA coal exports go to Brazil.

Its almost like this global economy thing is as complicated as healthcare...who knew?

But coal is so clean and gonna make the rest of the economy look like...coal.


Chart of jobs for the last several years.  So far, Trumps is not quite up to par with the previous performance.   No surprise there...it's those small hands of his!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/business/economy/jobs-report.html

[patric]

Meeting with Kim Jong Un could be a good thing. But Trump will probably screw it up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/03/09/meeting-with-kim-jong-un-could-be-a-good-thing-but-trump-will-probably-screw-it-up

[Conan71]

Guess Who Knows Both President Trump And Kim Jong Un?

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/09/592231729/guess-who-knows-both-president-trump-and-kim-jong-un

Dennis' nail polish looks dreadful.

[Conan71]

Really good jobs report this morning.  The best since Trump took office and so good it may be an unsustainable pace, that is to say we businesses should theoretically start having difficulty finding workers if we keep this up.  Economists say there is still slack in labor participation, hence the unemployment stayed at 4.1%, but that's already lower than they want.  This isn't a knock on Trump, just pure economics.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

Which makes the wage numbers really hard to understand.  As a lagging indicator it made sense for the first few years under Obama as the economy started to get back on its feet.  But we've been on a steady 88 month recovery now (BLS job numbers)... with wage growth that may be lagging inflation during that period (negative actual wage growth).  Even as employees  are harder to find, employers don't seem to be willing to pay them more.  Even as profits rise and the market booms, employers don't seem willing to pay workers more.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf

On a longer  term trend, wages have been detached from efficiency since the mid 1970s.  Up until then the post war era saw production efficiency correlated nearly perfectly with worker wages.  More recently, there has been essentially no correlation.  Whether a worker produces more or not seems to have little macro correlation on wages.
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

Which helps explains the wealth gap. The USA is generating more wealth than ever before, $17 Trillion dollars.  Corporate profits are at record highs.  Corporate effective tax rates are at record lows for the modern era.  Yet the average American family saw their wealth peek in the 1970s and in spite of the prevalence of 2 worker families, real family net worth is not growing.  Much of the wealth is being concentrated.
(my standard speech:  wealth concentration isn't a hippy feel good issue.  Rather its a matter of macro economics.  Very wealthy people can only consume so much, while middle income people tend to increase consumption with increased wages.  People struggling to make ends meet do not pay doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, real estate agents, home builders, purchase new cars, or start new businesses.  I have no desire to "punish" or take anything away from wealthy people, but the rules of the game currently are not reaching a result likely to generate the maximum amount of wealth for the nation as a whole. The current trend is bad in the long run for the Country as a whole. Subtle changes now could help shift that trend in the long term)
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp
http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wealth-gap-america/
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP

Essentially, we have plenty of jobs - but they aren't paying very well and our economy may outstrip our available workforce.

We have plenty of money - but it is being concentrated at the top and not finding its way to workers.


The Trump administration did not cause any of these problems and solid growth continues under it.  But the admin policies don't seem to even try to address the macro and long term issues with the economy.  In fact, they seemed likely to exacerbate them. 

When wealth gets concentrated amongst the ambitious or civic-minded it's not bad.  If it goes in a rabbit hole that is bad.  We approach this economic issue assuming the wealthiest don't do anything with it other than put it under their mattress which doesn't seem to jibe with reality.  With every mansion they purchase or renovate, that cycles through the economy.  With every yacht or airplane, that also circulates through he economy. 

Think of it this way:  If George Kaiser were a hoarder, his kids might inherit his fortune some day and perhaps blow it all on material things.  Instead, Mr. Kaiser has seen fit to endow his hometown with huge chunks of his wealth which has been very transformational in a number of ways. 

If someone is an entrepreneur and their business is creating a good deal of wealth for them, they employ people and possibly branch out and purchase or create other businesses which eventually end up employing people or at the very least spread more money throughout the economy.

Reading the most recent release of the Forbes billionaire list and some of the comments which come with it, there's a lot of philanthropy which comes along with that wealth which governments might not see their way fit to spend surpluses.

[guido911]

Well, Trump's tariffs on aluminum and steel are creating at least 800 new jobs.  #Winning!

I found this today, and until now I never knew there were Obama therapy dolls. I'll try to find one for you and Swake on Amazon...

"It's easy to look at what's happening in Washington, D.C. and despair. That's why I carry a little plastic Obama doll in my purse. I pull him out every now and then to remind myself that the United States had a progressive, African American president until very recently. Some people find this strange, but you have to take comfort where you can find it in Donald Trump's America," Abramson wrote.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/03/10/dcnf-former-nyt-executive-editor-keeps-barack-obama-therapy-doll-in-her-purse-612200?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#


edited. I found this.

https://www.amazon.com/Jailbreak-Barack-Obama-Action-Figure/dp/B001AF29MG/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1520712517&sr=8-3-fkmr1&keywords=obama+therapy+doll

[Ed W]

...We approach this economic issue assuming the wealthiest don't do anything with it other than put it under their mattress which doesn't seem to jibe with reality.  With every mansion they purchase or renovate, that cycles through the economy.  With every yacht or airplane, that also circulates through he economy....

That's true, but for those of us of more modest means, the money cycles through the economy much faster. Get paid on Friday and it's largely gone within days.

[heironymouspasparagus]

When wealth gets concentrated amongst the ambitious or civic-minded it's not bad.  If it goes in a rabbit hole that is bad.  We approach this economic issue assuming the wealthiest don't do anything with it other than put it under their mattress which doesn't seem to jibe with reality.  With every mansion they purchase or renovate, that cycles through the economy.  With every yacht or airplane, that also circulates through he economy. 

Think of it this way:  If George Kaiser were a hoarder, his kids might inherit his fortune some day and perhaps blow it all on material things.  Instead, Mr. Kaiser has seen fit to endow his hometown with huge chunks of his wealth which has been very transformational in a number of ways. 

If someone is an entrepreneur and their business is creating a good deal of wealth for them, they employ people and possibly branch out and purchase or create other businesses which eventually end up employing people or at the very least spread more money throughout the economy.

Reading the most recent release of the Forbes billionaire list and some of the comments which come with it, there's a lot of philanthropy which comes along with that wealth which governments might not see their way fit to spend surpluses.

Ever play the board game "Monopoly".   That's how it goes.  With interim steps along the way like the Great Recession we had a few years ago until the one really big collapse like 1929.  What was the last Picasso sold for...??   Couple hundred million, wasn't it??  It's all Monopoly money to the top 1%.

[Conan71]

Ever play the board game "Monopoly".   That's how it goes.  With interim steps along the way like the Great Recession we had a few years ago until the one really big collapse like 1929.  What was the last Picasso sold for...??   Couple hundred million, wasn't it??  It's all Monopoly money to the top 1%.

I never seem to get $200 every time I pass "Go" though.