Jump to content

Talk:Economic policy of the first Donald Trump administration/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Creation of the article

This article was copied from applicable sections of the Political positions of Donald Trump article initially to create it.Farcaster (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Economic policy of Donald Trump

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Economic policy of Donald Trump's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Wire":

  • From Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016: Epstein, Reid J., ed. (June 16, 2015). "Donald Trump Transcript: 'Our Country Needs a Truly Great Leader' – Washington Wire – WSJ". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
  • From Political positions of Donald Trump: "Donald Trump Transcript: 'Our Country Needs a Truly Great Leader'". Federal News Service speech. June 16, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

list of Economic policy of Donald Trump#Advisors

Dear Farcaster, although you have been here since at least 2007,[1] you and I seem to disagree on whether deleting reliably-sourced material on the basis of WP:NOT is proper.

  • 21:51, 22 December 2016‎ Farcaster (-17,404)‎ . . (Advisors - a giant list of people is not encyclopedic content)
  • 16:10, 21 December 2016‎ BD2412 (+116)‎ . . (Disambiguated: Gary Cohn, National Economic Council, Brad Smith, Blackstone, Uber, Paul Atkins, Larry Fink)
  • 16:09, 21 December 2016‎ BD2412 (+28)‎ . . (minor fixes, mostly disambig links using AWB)
  • 21:30, 19 December 2016‎ 47.222.203.135 (+55)‎ . . (→‎Advisors: fix 2 wikilinks)
  • 21:27, 19 December 2016‎ 47.222.203.135 (+16,784)‎ . . (→‎Advisors: list all known 'major' names from campaign, and potential administration positions, linking to cabinet page and position appointments page. Also give table of tech CEOs, biz group)

(not pinging BD2412 since they were doing copyedit stuff, and may not care, although of course they are welcome to contribute to this discussion)

Or possibly you were worried about page-load times, but in that case, I would suggest WP:SPINOFF rather than WP:DELETION... err, make that, rather than WP:REMOVAL. Can you please be more specific about what you thought made this material unencyclopedic? Because before we figure out whether it belongs in List of economic advisors to Donald Trump or in Economic policy of Donald Trump#Advisors, we best first get agreement on whether it belong in wikipedia at all. Diff for convenience.[2] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be sufficient to point to the list of advisors page; no need to repeat here.Farcaster (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me then. I have started a a draftpage, if you have time to glance through and make sure everything looks peachy and move to mainspace that will be appreciated (if you don't have time or inclination that is also fine of course I will run it by AFC or whatever). Since there was not such a subsidiary article at the time, I put the new stuff I had written here in Economic policy of Donald Trump#Advisors, as the obvious place for the material -- there is Political appointments of Donald Trump but those are formal jobs not 'informal' groups outside the federal payroll. In future may I suggest that you please don't just wipe well-referenced stuff out without considering whether it might be worth preserving aka WP:PRESERVE in some other article (even if said "other article" might not yet exist!). That said, no offense taken, and I do most sincerely appreciate your calm approach here -- and furthermore from looking at your contribs it is clear you are an AwesomeWikipedian™ to my eyes at least. Carry on and happy editing, I wish you bonne saturnalia or merry christmas or whatever other type of celebratory gregorian festivities you may prefer :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immigration policy of Donald Trump which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

CatapultTalks violates 1RR to reinsert inaccurate content

This edit[3] and the exact same one that the user did hours before are incorrect. Peter Navarro is an economist but he's not in Trump's cabinet. There are no economists in the cabinet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I violated the 1RR. Also, I do believe that I inserted sourced content. The CNBC source [4] is referring to Peter Navarro as an economist. If there are other reliable sources contesting this, by all means let's discuss this. CatapultTalks (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you acting willfully obtuse? Navarro is not in the cabinet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. Let me attempt a rephrase that he is not appointing the chair of CEA to cabinet as has been the tradition for past administrations. CatapultTalks (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be titled "of the Donald Trump administration"?

We seem to lack consistency in the titling of these articles, many of which seem overly slanted towards the campaign, rather than the policies which followed.Infamia (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There we agree. It would be easy enough to split into two articles or rename and push the pre-election stuff down in the article, like with the Obama article.Farcaster (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me, though I wouldn't know how to do that. I'd also note it doesn't make much sense to have some aspects of policy (i.e. Environmental Policy) be "of the Trump administration" and others "of Trump himself" (which presumably implies Trump, the candidate.)Infamia (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to note for you, I've proposed an article on Draft: List of people pardoned by Donald Trump which I was shocked to find didn't exist, even if it was just Arpaio, thus far. Every other president has such an article, and the Arpaio pardon is notable enough for its own article, anyway. I didn't put much work into it, but it seems such an article should exist, and is needed. I don't know how to get this article into the real pages, though. Infamia (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I suggest starting with a section in the Political positions article. When it gets big enough, you can split it out. No permission required to create a new article, but they sometimes get nixed by admins.Farcaster (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
ok, thanks for the suggestion. I'll see if I can work on it a bit more first before doing anything, but I'll think about trying it that way. anyway, to get back on the topic, I support your suggestion above to split this article or create a standalone article regarding the economic policies of the administration vis-a-vis those of the campaign. Infamia (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Article non-neutrality

The article focuses too heavily on highly negatively viewed aspects of the subject's policy and uses terms that highlight them in this way -- should be changed to reflect all aspects of his policies especially in the introduction, especially things like infrastructure or deregulation. Consider comparing it with the Reaganeconomics to ensure neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.236.50 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Besides, how does my edit violate WP:WEASEL? I only edited to remove a WP:NPOV violation-in a section header, of all places. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Without specific complaints, I'm removing the header.Farcaster (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

2009 G.M. fiscal comments

I was unable to get past the Times paywall to read this article, which had been removed from the Donald Trump article by another editor, but a Times Archive search yielded this: Trump: G.M. Should File for Bankruptcy As a guest on the "Late Show With David Letterman" Wednesday night, Donald Trump lashed out at G.M. for asking the federal government for money. February 19, 2009 - By RICHARD S. CHANG Activist (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for paragraph #2 of lede

IMO, there should be a background paragraph describing the state of the economy as Trump took office. I propose this text for the 2nd paragraph of the lede, for which I will provide references later, after others have provided their input.

In the month of Trump’s inauguration, the American economy was nearing its eighth year of recovery from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the economy was strong as it approached becoming the second longest expansion on record. Although the most significant indicator of economic health — growth in real gross domestic product — had been weaker than during previous recoveries, many other economic indicators had been strong, most notably private sector employment: 16 million jobs created during the longest continuous stretch of job growth on record. The unemployment rate, at 4.8%, had declined steadily since 2009 and was approaching a full employment level. Wage growth had been subdued by historical standards, but so had the cost of living as measured by the inflation rate. The employment level, household income and wealth, real GDP and the stock market had each recovered to record highs, while home values had been steadily rebounding for years. Federal deficits and food stamp enrollment had been steadily declining for years. These general trends have largely continued during the Trump presidency through April 2018, albeit with slightly higher real GDP growth and somewhat lower private sector job creation.

soibangla (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It can't go in the lede if the full details aren't in the body. As it stands, it's awfully long as it is for the lede, and it kind of reads like a disclaimer. If the article weren't entitled 'economic policy of Donald Trump', and instead was titled 'economic trends of the recovery since 2008', it might make sense, but that's not what the article is. Anastrophe (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the above paragraph makes sense in an "Initial economic situation" or "Economic situation in January 2017" section either before or after the strategy section. The recovery/growth in real gross domestic product wasn't that unusual when you compare it to other financial crisis/recession combinations globally. Households actually paid off debt from 2009-2012, which slowed things down. You might also indicate the year when the variables recovered to record level (employment level by 2014, household net worth by 2013, stock market by late 2012, etc. For real GDP, it was slow during the Bush era as well: Bush 43 1st term = 2.4%, 2nd term=1.2%. Obama 1.4% and 2.3%. This assumes Obama terms 2009-2013 and 2013-2016; you can defend shifting that one year as well as the first fiscal year of the President is budgeted by their predecessor. Then you get 3.2%, 0.4%, 2.1%, 2.3%, respectively. Of course the Bush years were a bubble; ex-home equity extraction Bush's GDP growth was closer to 1-1.5% in his first term.Farcaster (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Does this belong in lede

I just added this under "CBO scoring of the 2018 budget," although it's not a very good fit there and I didn't see a better place, but I suggest this should be paragraph #2 in the lede because it outlines Trump's broad budget priorities and how they've been received.

Comments? soibangla (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump released his first budget, for FY2018, on May 23, 2017. It proposed unprecedented spending reductions across most of the federal government, totaling $4.5 trillion over ten years, including a 33% cut for the State Department, 31% for the EPA, 21% each for the Agriculture Department and Labor Department, and 18% for the Department of Health and Human Services, with single-digit increases for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Department. The Republican-controlled Congress promptly rejected the proposal. Instead, Congress pursued an alternative FY2018 budget linked to their tax reform agenda; this budget was adopted in late 2017, after the 2018 fiscal year had begun. Trump released his second budget, for FY2019, on February 23, 2018; it also proposed major spending reductions, totaling $3 trillion over ten years, across most of the federal government. This budget was also largely ignored by the Republican-controlled Congress. One month later, Trump signed a $1.3 trillion bipartisan, omnibus spending bill to fund the government through the end of FY2018, hours after he had threatened to veto it. The bill increased both defense and domestic expenditures, and Trump was sharply criticized by his conservative supporters for signing it.

July 2018 analysis

I'm totally out of the loop on this article, so I just wanted to note that there's a July 2018 paper which analyzes Trump's impact on the US economy, which should be added to an appropriate section of the article (if it hasn't already): https://voxeu.org/article/stable-genius-estimating-trump-effect-us-economy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Food Stamps

Regarding this reversion:

I'm happy to replace the WH transcript with this secondary source with the same quote: “More than 10 million additional Americans had been added to food stamps, past years. But we’ve turned it all around.”

The NYT source says SNAP participation "declined every year" since fiscal 2013, while the source I provided is more accurate at December 2012, which is in fiscal 2013. Fair enough? soibangla (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I would be good with using that source to make those statements. Talks about his quote and references the data. PackMecEng (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is additional objection, I will amend the edit as discussed. soibangla (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Food stamps is actually a pretty insignificant government program and changes in it often have more to do with what happens at the state level(s) than with national level, so just generally I think food stamps are undue for the lede. Also, just more generally, this is an article about "economic policy OF Donald Trump" not What happened to the economy while Trump was president. There's of course some overlap between these two but we should be careful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Understood, but Trump saying "But we’ve turned it all around" means he's saying his policies caused it. SNAP is a highly contentious political issue. It wasn't in the lede. soibangla (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Farcaster

I looked at the lede the other day and thought, "oh man, that thing needs a major update but I'm just not in the mood, I hope Farcaster does it." soibangla (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I know you did a lot of work on the original so I was tempted to ask you first; glad you're OK with it!Farcaster (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Something for consideration — real GDP growth rates

soibangla (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a source attribution for the data anywhere. Anastrophe (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not adding this to the article soibangla (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, if this is compounded, then there's eight years of Obama compounding vs a little over 2.5 years for Trump. How is this meaningful? Anastrophe (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't compare 8 years of Obama to 2.5 years of Trump soibangla (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If your post of the graph isn't intended to be published in the article, and you aren't going to provide your sources, then it should be deleted from the talk page. This isn't a forum. Anastrophe (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I am providing it so that it might help others to improve the article with related information. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not an acceptable rationale. You refuse to share the source of the data you claim to be representing? Then we must assume it's a misrepresentation.
I've created my own graphic, using the same "data". Other editors are welcome to use it to improve the article with related information. Anastrophe (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Real GDP Growth — Compound Annual Growth Rate — Trump vs. Obama through ten quarters

non-neutrality Article

I feel like the overall tone of the article is negative and biased. It also barely highlighted the positive In this article. BigRed606 (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add some specifics or the banner will be removed. Trump's influence on the U.S. economy has been overwhelmingly negative.Farcaster (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

For example in the article talks about how

the CBO reported that lower-income groups would incur net costs under the tax plan, either paying higher taxes or receiving fewer government benefits: those under $20,000 by 2019; those under $40,000 from 2021 to 2025; and those under $75,000 in 2027 and beyond but it does not explain the positive. Also the article goes right into criticism of Trumps economic plan.

A good article would be neutral on the subject and would leave criticism in the criticism section of the article, (which their is none). I propose this whole article be rewritten.BigRed606 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Farcaster (talk) That is your opinion, I would not use that as a fact to prove your case. Because opinion is not fact.BigRed606 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A great example of a neutral article would be Reaganomics For example the entry into Reaganomics goes like this:

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] The results of Reaganomics are still debated. Supporters point to the end of stagflation, stronger GDP growth, and an entrepreneur revolution in the decades that followed.[3][4] Critics point to the widening income gap, what they described as an atmosphere of greed, and the national debt tripling in eight years which ultimately reversed the post-World War II trend of a shrinking national debt as percentage of GDP.

Vs Economic policy of Donald Trump

which starts like this:

Bills to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") did not pass Congress in mid-2017. However, Trump's tax reform plan was signed into law in December 2017, which included substantial tax cuts for higher income taxpayers and corporations as well as repeal of a key Obamacare element, the individual mandate. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) reported that the new tax law would slightly increase the size of the economy (level of GDP, not growth rate) by 0.7% total over a decade.[4] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in April 2018 that implementing the Tax Act would add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years,[5] or about $1.891 trillion ($15,000 per household) after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt. Debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP would rise from around 77% GDP in 2017 to as much as 105% GDP by 2028.[6] The CBO reported that lower-income groups would incur net costs under the tax plan, either paying higher taxes or receiving fewer government benefits: those under $20,000 by 2019; those under $40,000 from 2021 to 2025; and those under $75,000 in 2027 and beyond.[7] As a result, critics argued the tax bill unfairly benefited higher-income taxpayers and corporations at the expense of lower-income taxpayers, and therefore would significantly increase income inequality.[8][9] The CBO reported in December 2019 that it expected inequality to increase from 2016 to 2021, due in part to the Trump tax cuts, with the share of income received by the top 1% rising and other groups falling.[10].

BigRed606 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You can clearly see that Economic policy of Donald Trump, has a more harsher overall tone to it BigRed606 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is not biased. It is factual and supported by reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because it has sources and facts from well know sites doesn’t mean it’s not negatively toned. BigRed606 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The article also highly relies on The CBO. Although the CBO is great source to use. It also recommended to use other sources like Forbes or Bloomberg, because they might have different information and results than the CBO.BigRed606 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I am removing the POV tag. There is no specific, actionable suggestion of an actual problem with the article or a Wikipedia policy-compliant alternative to the current article text. The fact that the CBO is cited frequently is unsurprising given their importance in U.S. fiscal policy analysis. The fact that criticism is included is also not a POV problem. Neutralitytalk 22:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
By my count, the article references Forbes 7 times and Bloomberg 35 times. CBO is often cited because the government has accepted their nonpartisan analysis for decision-making for decades, until some decided CBO was untrustworthy because they didn't report findings those people wanted to hear, such as "tax cuts always pay for themselves." soibangla (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Pls read this again BigRed606 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A great example of a neutral article would be Reaganomics For example the entry into Reaganomics goes like this:

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] The results of Reaganomics are still debated. Supporters point to the end of stagflation, stronger GDP growth, and an entrepreneur revolution in the decades that followed.[3][4] Critics point to the widening income gap, what they described as an atmosphere of greed, and the national debt tripling in eight years which ultimately reversed the post-World War II trend of a shrinking national debt as percentage of GDP.

Vs Economic policy of Donald Trump

which starts like this:

Bills to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") did not pass Congress in mid-2017. However, Trump's tax reform plan was signed into law in December 2017, which included substantial tax cuts for higher income taxpayers and corporations as well as repeal of a key Obamacare element, the individual mandate. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) reported that the new tax law would slightly increase the size of the economy (level of GDP, not growth rate) by 0.7% total over a decade.[4] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in April 2018 that implementing the Tax Act would add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years,[5] or about $1.891 trillion ($15,000 per household) after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt. Debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP would rise from around 77% GDP in 2017 to as much as 105% GDP by 2028.[6] The CBO reported that lower-income groups would incur net costs under the tax plan, either paying higher taxes or receiving fewer government benefits: those under $20,000 by 2019; those under $40,000 from 2021 to 2025; and those under $75,000 in 2027 and beyond.[7] As a result, critics argued the tax bill unfairly benefited higher-income taxpayers and corporations at the expense of lower-income taxpayers, and therefore would significantly increase income inequality.[8][9] The CBO reported in December 2019 that it expected inequality to increase from 2016 to 2021, due in part to the Trump tax cuts, with the share of income received by the top 1% rising and other groups falling.[10].

BigRed606 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You can clearly see that Economic policy of Donald Trump, has a more harsher overall tone to it BigRed606 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ps I restored the tag because I do not believe you read everything I saidBigRed606 (talk)

Also compare the Economic Policy of Obama, were it starts like this:

The economic policy of the Barack Obama administration was characterized by moderate tax increases on higher income Americans. It was designed to fund health care reform, reduce the federal budget deficit, and decrease income inequality. His first term (2009–2013) included measures designed to address the Great Recession and Subprime mortgage crisis, which began in 2007. These included a major stimulus package, banking regulation, and comprehensive healthcare reform. As the economy improved and job creation continued during his second term (2013–2017), the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire for the highest income taxpayers and a spending sequester (cap) was implemented, to further reduce the deficit back to typical historical levels. Corporate profits and the stock market reached record levels in 2010 and 2013 respectively, while inflation and interest rates remained near record low levels.

Compared to the Economic Policy of Donald Trump were it starts like this:

Bills to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") did not pass Congress in mid-2017. However, Trump's tax reform plan was signed into law in December 2017, which included substantial tax cuts for higher income taxpayers and corporations as well as repeal of a key Obamacare element, the individual mandate. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) reported that the new tax law would slightly increase the size of the economy (level of GDP, not growth rate) by 0.7% total over a decade.[4] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in April 2018 that implementing the Tax Act would add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years,[5] or about $1.891 trillion ($15,000 per household) after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt. Debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP would rise from around 77% GDP in 2017 to as much as 105% GDP by 2028.[6] The CBO reported that lower-income groups would incur net costs under the tax plan, either paying higher taxes or receiving fewer government benefits: those under $20,000 by 2019; those under $40,000 from 2021 to 2025; and those under $75,000 in 2027 and beyond.[7] As a result, critics argued the tax bill unfairly benefited higher-income taxpayers and corporations at the expense of lower-income taxpayers, and therefore would significantly increase income inequality.[8][9] The CBO reported in December 2019 that it expected inequality to increase from 2016 to 2021, due in part to the Trump tax cuts, with the share of income received by the top 1% rising and other groups falling.[10].

BigRed606 (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Except this article doesn't start as you say it does. soibangla (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? I copied that paragraph right from the Economic policy of Donald Trump.BigRed606 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You started with the 2nd paragraph for Trump, but the 1st paragraph for Obama soibangla (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And??? BigRed606 (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Big Red, you seem to believe there are positives in what Trump has done and that the article is biased against him, but have you considered it may be biased for him, considering how awful his policies are?

  • His tax cuts temporarily boosted growth, but dramatically increased the deficits/debt, adversely impacted the most vulnerable, and will worsen inequality. That point is made right at the start of the article.
  • His tariffs were nearly universally panned by economists as slowing the economy and acting as a tax on American businesses and consumers, offsetting nearly all of the benefits some received from the tax cuts.
  • His deregulation was expected to be harmful, as explained by a study from his own OMB. The article could probably explain in more detail how it's OK for coal companies to dump more waste in rivers now, for example.
  • Over 2 million have lost health insurance, with a forecast of 6 million more uninsured by 2021 versus the Obama policy baseline.
  • Metric by metric, he's either under-performing Obama (e.g., job creation) or taking credit for trends that long pre-date him (e.g., a falling unemployment rate and improving prime-age labor force participation).
  • The opportunity costs compared to better policy (e.g., tax hikes on the rich to fund healthcare expansion, reduce the deficit, and expand education) are not addressed in much depth.
  • The stock market, one of his favorite metrics, was up more at this point in the Obama and Clinton presidencies. They neither cut taxes for corporations by one third nor blew up the deficit nor made inequality worse with their tax policies.

See what I mean? I could do this all morning?Farcaster (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Farcaster You could be a lot friendlier. Not saying the information is wrong, just saying the tone is negative. Read the economic policy of Obama article, and Reagan economics article on Wikipedia.BigRed606 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Even the economic policy article about George W Bush, is more Neutral then the article about economic policy of Donald Trump, and the Bush administration policy about economics were mediocre.BigRed606 (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Trying to fix this

The strategy section that seems to have triggered a revert was left pretty much intact from early version before banner included; mainly removed some redundant text. I'm trying to cure the problem. Please let's start getting specific about what needs to get fixed, meaning labels on particular paragraphs or sections that need more clarity.Farcaster (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of trying to edit this thing to address the blanket, unspecific and unhelpful complaint that somehow the article is biased against Trump. Perhaps look at the "Overall evaluations" section to see what the pros think of Trump's economic policies before you assume the tone is too negative. My edits to this point have been to make this more like the Economic Policy of Barack Obama.Farcaster (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm planning to go through section by section now and trim each area, as much has accreted over time. It will take a couple of weeks to do all that. Have faith, I'm the editor who did much of the work on the comparable article for Obama and even Big Red likes that one! If you have a particular section you want to tackle, say so below and I'll avoid that one.Farcaster (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Trade section

I'd like some suggestions on how to edit this section, as we have a sub-article on the Trump Tariffs that covers much of it. I'm thinking we can summarize the tariff section (maybe three paragraphs, policy, economic impact, and commentary). Text that people feel is valuable we can move over to the tariff article. Thoughts?Farcaster (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Manufacturing section

I think we should mention bringing back factories and manufacturing jobs as a key Trump strategy up front, then have a section where we cover the stats on manufacturing employment, output, and factory count from the SOTU (improving since 2013 I believe). The impact of tariffs on manufacturing can be covered there as well.Farcaster (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Great idea. I've done a lot of number crunching on this that I obviously can't contribute here unless/until some reliable sources wake up and report it. soibangla (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits reversed

  • While GDP growth was boosted temporarily by Trump's stimulus (tax cuts & spending that significantly increased the deficit boosts growth temporarily as Keynesian theory and GDP math predicts), job creation slowed, so saying the economy "accelerated" is arguable. CBO and the Fed both are indicating growth about 2% or less going forward, indicating no long-term impact. "Continued" is what the fact checkers say. If you're attached to the word "accelerated" then let's say "temporarily accelerated GDP growth" and clearly link that response to the greater deficit that drove it. GDP growth in Trump's first 11 quarters averaged the same as Obama's last 11; Trump's slight advantage over 12 quarters is entirely explained by the incremental spending, as explained in the GDP section.
  • Regarding the U-6 unemployment rate, it fell consistently throughout the 2010-present period, as did the U-3, so bringing it up just confuses things. If you want to get into the nuances of U-6, I suggest doing that in the body.
  • Labor force participation overall (age 16+) hasn't changed much, at 62.7% when Obama left office and 63.4% three years later; it was 62.8% as recently as April 2019. It's been going up since September 2015, although it's in a long-term decline as the country ages. Since this variable is so cluttered by retirees and students, it's better to use prime-age (25-54) labor force participation. That's gone up from 81.4% at the end of the Obama Administration to 83.1% in January 2020, a more impressive improvement but still an improvement going on since September 2015. We've got that variable in the table and more discussion of it in the employment section may be worthwhile.Farcaster (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't bother defending the QZ piece; that's just really bad analysis. I left it in and balanced it, but I'm fine if others want to remove both parts.Farcaster (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I've removed the QZ piece as it's undue weighting (that's a tiny part of the work force) and making a bad argument and the editor adding it won't balance it.Farcaster (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Trump's argument for his tax cuts is the usually supply-side argument, which is about boosting investment (which didn't happen for long). Saying its about boosting consumer spending requires a citation.Farcaster (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I admire a person who can read a CBO BEO in a couple of minutes. Of course that is what CBO said, but I added a Reuters quote to make it jump out. I hope that resolves your concern.Farcaster (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Please avoid personalized commentary. Focus on content, not editors. Anastrophe (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The comment was about both, and entirely appropriate, as the source certainly did support the statement. Here are a variety of background aggregate sources on the matter: [5], [6], [7], [8]. @Mr. Vernon: please review them. EllenCT (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT: That wasn't the source for that statement, though. I searched the CBO publication for relevant keywords and found nothing that matched the assertions. If the source is Reason or Reuters, then say that. It's been fixed but it may be useful for another editor to go through the additions today to see if any other errors were made. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
You searched [9] for "tariffs"? Table 2-2 is a good starting point. EllenCT (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Trump's strategy

From the article:

"A key part of Trump's economic strategy has been to temporarily boost growth by significantly increasing the budget deficit via tax cuts and additional spending,[5] with mixed success.[19]"

His strategy was to "significantly increas[e] the budget deficit"? No, the significant increase in the budget deficit was a likely result of the strategy. As worded, it reads as if Trump overtly directed that the budget deficit be increased.

Worded neutrally, I think the following would be the correct characterization: "A key part of Trump's economic strategy has been to temporarily boost growth via tax cuts and additional spending,[5] with mixed success.[19]" The resultant increase in the deficit is dealt with in detail elsewhere in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wordy.

The article should be renamed to conform with the other articles, imo.

I realize that word count isn't a reliable metric; Clinton's two terms were before WP existed, and WP was barely getting its sea legs during Bush's first term. However, it's curious that it takes double the words to describe Trump's three years of economic policy compared to eight years of Obama, particularly since Obama was faced with the Great Recession. This article is excruciatingly, massively, detailed. Part of the job of an encyclopedia entry is to _summarize_ the information, is it not? Anastrophe (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you there, and much of that is my doing. I would like this article to just focus on the economic policy of the administration and be renamed consistent with the others, with some brief references to the campaign, and remove the remainder. That would allow us to move everything below the income and wealth inequality section into another article, or delete it. The Obama article has the same issue, with the bottom third outside the scope of the actual administration. Thoughts on how to split that out? I was thinking "Economic views of Donald Trump" might be a good title.Farcaster (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. soibangla (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's vote on the banner

Remove. If anything, I think the article is biased in that it is too kind to Trump, but I could be wrong.Farcaster (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep I think the article needs major work before the tag can be removed. Including rewriting the article to a neutral tone.BigRed606 (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep Systemic bias is rarely addressed by a vote that is likely to include the most active editors. It needs independent review. Anastrophe (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove: As always, I encourage those who perceive bias to add/edit content to rectify their perceptions, rather than run to a sweeping assertion of systemic bias. I suspect that Trump's 240+ claims of "best economy in history" cause some readers to experience profound cognitive dissonance when confronted with the reality presented in this article. soibangla (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Strong Keep: There's a substantial amount of gatekeeping on this article just from looking at the history alone, usually by the same small group of editors with an apparent bias/slant against the current U.S. President, as evident by the non-neutral tone in this article compared to previous administration's pages; the relatively combative and passive aggressive justifications for the clique's choices in edits and reverting other people's edits (on this article and other Trump-related articles); the fact "Obama" is mentioned in this article over 108 times for some reason when the article's subject is about his successor's policies; a strange and bizarre concern for being "Too kind" to Trump (as seen by an above entry), and the fact one of the clique of editors outright implied that the purpose of this article is specifically to serve as a battleground to counter the subject's points (as seen by an above entry) rather than simply keeping citations and tone as neutral as possible. There is very obvious and arguably disturbing systemic bias in this article and I'd even propose that it deserves a completely neutral, non-contrarian rewrite by unbiased editors with no agenda to prove Trump right or wrong on anything or, as evidenced by the entry before me, to try and prove a bizarre, warped point about giving readers "cognitive dissonance" once they are "confronted with the reality presented in this article." ... What? RopeTricks (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

RopeTricks, I submit that your perception of apparent bias/slant against the current U.S. President is actually a response to his 257 false assertions that he has engineered the best economy in history, a veritable miracle, following what he has characterized as the worst expansion ever (which was actually superior by nearly all metrics) and this mantra is repeated ad nauseam across Fox News, conservative blogs and social media and some editors attempt to inject it into this article, but a “clique” of editors with broad and deep knowledge of economic data (experts, if you will) prevent them from turning this article into a Trump campaign document. And this may explain why some readers experience cognitive dissonance, as they do not read here what they’re being told by sources they believe and trust who are lying to them. As I said before, As always, I encourage those who perceive bias to add/edit content to rectify their perceptions, rather than run to a sweeping assertion of systemic bias, so I suggest you go for it, but if you do/can not, I suggest you drop your objection to removing the banner. soibangla (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Engaging in mind-reading is not how we typically resolve disputes. Your 'submissions' are noted, but unless you have evidence that other editors are somehow mesmerized by Fox news and conservative blogs etc, your speculations on motive aren't helpful and lack AGF. I will repeat what I recommended previously: this article needs independent review, by uninvolved, disinterested editors. I don't think that systemic bias is appropriately addressed by polling the most active editors. That said, my skills at creating good RfC's blow chunks, which is why I avoid starting them myself. The problem with the article is one of 'tone', which is exceedingly difficult to suss out even by the best editors, and considering the polarizing nature of Trump, it may be difficult to find a cohort who DGAS enough to take sides - or even write a neutral RfC. Anastrophe (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Anastrophe, I have no problem with an independent review, which should start with making edits rather than proceeding straight to an RFC. My point is that it has become difficult to not hear persistent background noise that we're now experiencing a "booming" economy, which is belied by the data, unless one wants to also characterize years before 2017 as "booming" as well. soibangla (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
How would a _review_ begin with making edits? Sorry, I'm unclear. Anastrophe (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, maybe "review" isn't the right word. There are editors who frequently come to Trump-related articles asserting that it's flagrantly biased, but they make no effort to identify/correct that perceived bias by making edits. That should be their first course of action, rather than "calling a convention" with an RFC. soibangla (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I think independent review is the better path, for the reasons I've already stated. On the other hand, I'm not terribly invested in this matter, so my participation will likely be low. Anastrophe (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
If that's the path you prefer, it suggests you're doing what I described: expressing vague "concerns" without making any effort to address them in the article. As in the case of any article, be BOLD. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾ soibangla (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop imputing other editor's motives absent evidence, it's not good faith. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
He won't, because he has made it apparent with his choice of words that he wholeheartedly believes he's on some bizarre personal crusade to "rectify" perceptions of Trump and is using the wiki as a medium to do so. It is indeed not good faith. RopeTricks (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Ahem. Good Faith argument recursion alert. You've just imputed soibangla's motive. Whether you believe there is evidence of same, it's not good faith to make a claim as you just did. In order to interrupt the recursion, I now invoke the word "Nazi", and hope this portion of the thread ends here. Anastrophe (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I encourage you to make an edit to rectify the very obvious and arguably disturbing systemic bias you perceive, as I have consistently done in this article and many others when editors assert apparent bias/slant against the current U.S. President without providing an example. soibangla (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep The issues here are pretty obvious. But at the heart of the problem is: there are a lot of editors here grinding axes. Wiki itself says it is not a reliable source. Until we get some standards and unbiased editors.....we will continue to suffer these issues. Cheers.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Rja13ww33 says The issues here are pretty obvious, so it should be easy to enumerate them. Even just one. Yet no one does. soibangla (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it is obvious what this article amounts to: anything good that has happened since 2016 is because of his predecessor.....anything bad....must be him. More specifics? Well, to start off with how about the intro? On income inequality, the intro states ….his tax cuts were projected to worsen income inequality. Ok fair enough....and in fact (to the best of my knowledge) income inequality has increased under him...but go to the Obama economic policy page (which you are also heavily involved in editing) in the intro it says this: The economic policy of the Barack Obama administration was characterized by moderate tax increases on higher income Americans, designed to fund health care reform, reduce the federal budget deficit, and decrease income inequality. So that would leave the reader wondering....was income inequality reduced under Obama? No. In fact by the very charts buried in the article....it has continued to grow. It's this kind of inbalance….in sources, outcomes, treatment of motives, etc, etc that make this article problematic. I appreciate your efforts.....but NPOV is mandatory here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it is obvious what this article amounts to: anything good that has happened since 2016 is because of his predecessor.....anything bad....must be him No, it's just that this article shows that the ubiquitous narrative of an "an economic turnaround of historic proportions" is false and was in fact preceded by years of expansion that by most metrics was actually superior. Also, Trump campaigned specifically on helping the "forgotten ones" of the working-class, and now claims there is a "blue-collar boom" underway, with wages growing faster at the bottom than at the top, but in fact the spread between earnings for the top 10% and bottom 10% of workers has widened under Trump, so mention of this is justified. And to the extent wages at the bottom have increased, a great extent of that can be explained by many states phasing-in multi-year minimum wage increases, with 22 states increasing their minimum wage by an average of 5.8% in 2019. Nevertheless, once again, I encourage other editors to contribute to the article rather than complaining on Talk that it's all so unfair and doing nothing else. soibangla (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Clearly you are not editing from a NPOV. Pushing agendas is not what we are here for. The banner is there because there is a issue that needs addressing with this article. It's not something that could be fixed with just a handful of edits. A overhaul is likely needed....but consensus for that has to be built here first so that a edit war doesn't start.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Clearly you are not editing from a NPOV Look, there has always been lots of lying about economics, and especially since 2008, and these lies constitute political messaging rather than rigorous economic analysis. For several years the public has been bombarded with pervasive and inescapable political messaging about the economy that is false, and some cannot distinguish that political messaging from rigorous analysis, and then some come to this article expecting it to reflect the political messaging they've heard everywhere, but are shocked to learn this article doesn't reflect it, and so they conclude there must be something wrong here, in the form of some unspecified "tone" problem. I would appreciate if editors who believe an RFC/overhaul is in order would present, say, five specific examples of what they're talking about, then we can have a discussion about them to determine if an RFC is in order. Kinda like presenting sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to open a full investigation. I don't think that's too much to expect. And just for the record, I was long employed doing this kind of analysis at high levels of the corporate world, and my work has been intensely scrutinized and vetted by numerous executives who would never tolerate any hint of agenda pushing. That's the ethic I have been steeped in for many years. There's a whole lotta lying going on these days, and I will play whatever infinitesimal role I can to prevent this encyclopedia from being polluted by it. So I have to wonder if your claim Clearly you are not editing from a NPOV is actually projection because your POV is not being reflected in the article. soibangla (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
There's a whole lotta lying going on these days, and I will play whatever infinitesimal role I can to prevent this encyclopedia from being polluted by it. Yeah, no agenda here! As for me, I really don't have a POV. (Other than I'm not a fan of the guy.) I am fascinated by the tariff approach because I've always been curious as to the results in a global economy we have at this point. But beyond that, not much interest. (If you'll notice, I have had no edits here until now. I didn't even have it on my watchlist until recently.) You've been given examples.....you just don't like them. Clearly we need impartial people involved on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, no agenda here! Yep, you can see my agenda on my user page, which some Twitter clown asserts is proof of my bias. HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. impartial editors with no point to prove but have an interest in the topic is what needed. Not gatekeeping editors that revert edits they personally do not like. Hard to "rectify" the tone problems in this article with such activity going on. RopeTricks (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I reject the assertion of a clique of gatekeepers who revert edits they personally do not like. It just so happens that, for some reason, few editors have chosen to participate here, and consequently a small number of editors with knowledge of the material have ensured the article isn't skeletal. On occasion someone appears to post some specious or flatly false content, which gets reverted in the same manner as in any other article. I implore you and others to participate in the article to rectify your perceived yet still unspecified "tone problem." soibangla (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you keep saying the issues are "unspecified" when (in fact) I have specified several (with examples) and others have added sections detailing specific issues as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Have you also noted that I have refuted the assertions, which suggests that your perceptions are invalid? And I was speaking specifically to RopeTricks. soibangla (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed you've attempted to....but I'm not buying it. And your comment was: I implore you and others to participate in the article to rectify your perceived yet still unspecified "tone problem." That's implying it hasn't been stated (as one of the "others")…..it has.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not buying it You have given me few to no reasons to care what you believe, so I suggest we drop this conversation. The solution is to edit. soibangla (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I've explained why I endorsed the move made here first (including the endorsement of the banner). It's called building a consensus....it's what we try to do here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dodd-Frank was not "repealed"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_policy_of_Donald_Trump&diff=943785388&oldid=943586797

No, Dodd-Frank was neither repealed nor gutted. Here’s what really happened

Trump said he would "dismantle" it as candidate and as president-elect, and the reference says "dismantled." Also, dismantling Dodd-Frank was not the full extent of his banking deregulation: The issuance of financial regulations has dropped to a 40-year low, new data shows, a sign that the Trump administration is fulfilling its deregulatory agenda. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

One reference said dismantled. The other reference said repealed. I think it's quite a stretch to say that a reduction in new regulation is equivalent to deregulation. More regulation is not inherently salutary.
The second references says Trump proposes repealing 'burdensome' portions. It's not a stretch to characterize a decrease in the rate of regulation as deregulation, as the provided reference characterizes it as such.soibangla (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether a reduction in the rate of new regulation creation constitutes deregulation. I think standard grammar and definitions are on my side, but it's immaterial.Anastrophe (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
A source specializing in the banking industry says "The issuance of financial regulations has dropped to a 40-year low, new data shows, a sign that the Trump administration is fulfilling its deregulatory agenda." I think the facts are on my side. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, well. The quote is on your side, certainly. It's an interesting opinion, I'll give you that, but unless we're just making up new meanings for the latin particle 'de', it's just fanciful language mangling. Regardless, it's a pointless argument. If you want it to say dismantled (although, in context, it would be 'dismantling'), go for it. I think it should probably be in quotes, since it's not the least bit scary. Anastrophe (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
As presented, the opening sentence doesn't say that Dodd-Frank was repealed or dismantled, it says that that was an item included in his desired policy outcomes. If you insist on "dismantled", then it should be in quotes, because, well, it's a quote. Anastrophe (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a real reason scare quotes are necessary. Quote or not, it was dismantled rather than repealed, and that word should be reverted. soibangla (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Since when are quotation marks, employed around a quoted word, labeled 'scare quotes'? Nonsense. Small portions of Dodd-Frank were changed, that's it. It was not dismantled. If you insist that "dismantled" is the only accurate characterization, and since "dismantled" is a direct quote from Trump's transition team (and why all the headlines parrot it), then there's absolutely nothing scare-quoty about it. Suggesting Dodd-Frank actually was dismantled is fairly absurd. That the transition team said that they wanted it dismantled isn't - it's merely a quote. Anastrophe (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Small portions of Dodd-Frank were changed, that's it. And yet you go even farther than "dismantled" and change it to "repealed." Huh? soibangla (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Please reread the sentence. I don't think you're reading it in context, as I've pointed out above and elsewhere regarding the vacillation between what Trump wanted and what has happened so far. It's a statement of the policy objectives, not the policy outcomes. If I am misreading the sentence, then I'd suggest it's poorly worded in toto, and should be wordsmithed. Anastrophe (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
He neither called for full repeal nor did he do it. Let's just call it "rollback" and be done with it. soibangla (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, in that same sentence, it says 'attempts to repeal [obamacare]', rather than simply 'repeal of obamacare'. Since the sentence is declaring the policy initiatives that were put forth - not what the results of the policy initiatives have been, the latter would be the correct characterization. Anastrophe (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
OK. soibangla (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Job creation

From the article:

"In the labor market, job creation in Trump's first three years was sufficient to continue lowering the unemployment rate, which hit a 50-year record low of 3.5% in September 2019. However, job creation was faster in the four years before Trump took office (217,000 per month on average) than the first 3 years of the Trump Administration (191,000 on average) through December 2019.[8][13]"

Since I am not an expert in economics, thus the targeted reader, I was under the (mis?)apprehension that as unemployment rates get closer and closer to full employment, the 'creation' of new jobs tends to constrict? Looking at the following graph - http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/us-job-growth-remains-strong-and-steady-april - what differences there are in the monthly averages appear to be largely in the noise (and why compare four years to three years?). I question why the word "However" is necessary in the quoted section, unless we're intent on stressing that Obama was "better" at this rather tenuous metric. Anastrophe (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The four years to three years was in a convenient source. A better measure is the 36 months prior to Trump taking office with 36 months after (8.1 million vs. 6.6 million). I'll update it with that in the near-term. While it makes sense that the job creation would slow as you get closer to full employment, nobody knows where that is, so CBO keeps changing their forecasts; the years when the job creation goes towards zero keep being pushed out.Farcaster (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Shortly after I posted that I ran across an excellent article on five-thirty-eight that explained the high elasticity of the 'job creation' data. From my perspective it's a pretty fuzzy metric that doesn't illuminate much, compared to the 'harder' numbers for unemployment rates. That and a buck fifty...Anastrophe (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Job creation is volatile, but over say a 3-6 month rolling average you get a good number. It's arguably as important as the unemployment rate. The problem with the unemployment rate is it excludes those who aren't actively looking for work, which is why the labor force participation rates have been getting more attention over the past few years.Farcaster (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The unemployment rate is actually a fuzzier number because it is an equation rather than a straight count of jobs, and as a result it can sometimes increase for good reasons (people entering labor force) and decrease for bad reasons (people leaving labor force). soibangla (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

For reference, this was the article I ran across yesterday - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/jobs-report-growth-unemployment/ Anastrophe (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I find more reasons to believe the article contradicts your argument rather than supports it. The article simply notes that one monthly data point, especially prior to revisions, does not constitute a trend, so people should not holler "jobs boom!" when private sector jobs increased by 258,000 in Jan 2019, only to decrease by 6,000 the next month. And "elasticity" doesn't enter into this. soibangla (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
As I'm not an economist, just an average reader of things, I wasn't applying "elastic" in formal economic inside-baseball term; instead simply referring to how the numbers become more refined over time, and are thus adjusted upwards or downwards from their initial values. Anastrophe (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Section 4, Statistical summary

The table presented is excellent - but wouldn't it be useful to include the up and down arrows for the previous years as well, with 2014 as the base? Then just add a slightly heavier vertical separator between 2016 and 2017 to show the cutover to Trump. It would give a visual representation of the trends both before and after. If that sounds okay, I could try my hand at updating it. Anastrophe (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, please proceed.Farcaster (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Please check my work if you have a moment. I couldn't figure out how to make the column separator between Obama/Trump a bold (or any other style) line, but that's not absolutely necessary I guess. Anastrophe (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_policy_of_the_first_Donald_Trump_administration/Archive_1&oldid=1256756154"