Hacker News

How am I supposed to consolidate my power if the market doesn't crash so I can purchase residential and commercial real estate at bargain prices? Every third restaurant and business on Las Olas was shuttered in 2009, the buildings sold for next to nothing. Today there's one after another—Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley, Maserati—parked on the street in front of those same buildings, all the while, Steve B. and I enjoy that Luigi's coal fired pizza! /s

Found your article for you, as I was looking it up the other day:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

That's true. Though in this case the administration is taking a much more active hand in the economy than any in almost a century.

For the most part the correlation between administrations and the economy is arbitrary. But in this case I would make a case that it is causative.

Sort of. I've done a lot of thinking about this one, and realize that it's really not just "one person" but a very large team of individuals, along with the "politics" of everything. If the President brings on a good staff, makes solid cabinet appointments, and they themself being a singular large part of the legislative process in modern years--given that it's usually fairly difficult to get 2/3rds of Congress to agree on anything--you can see the President actually has significantly more influence than you'd think.

In addition, it's the circles that person runs in and the circles that person's people run in. Do you think judge or cabinet appointments are decided on by one person? Sure, the President is a figurehead in this position and ultimately has to say yes or no, but there's a large pool of candidates out there and it's up to the staffers, maybe friends, maybe people in the know to propose those people to the President.

So while on paper the President doesn't, or shouldn't have that much power--in actuality with our current political process it's certainly much more.

Now, that said, just like the billionaires--they can only control so much. At least in the United States, there are competing interests even among the wealthy class, and sometimes shit just sort of happens--like a meteor killing the dinosaurs....or the release of decades of e-mails, videos, documents, and communications surrounding their pedophile behavior on a secret island in the Caribbean.

I disagree, but my personal belief is the economy and the government stewardship thereof work much the same way as WH40K ork technology

If that were true then why would there be such a glaringly clear example that presidential party influences economic performance?

It seems silly to blame these on the president though, consider just the past two recessions and how little they had to do with the actions of POTUS...

Ok, but is it cause or effect? Maybe Republicans do well when there is fear about the economy and a recession is coming.

This is largely the crux of it.

GOP is the fun dad party and Dems are the mommy party.

Republicans run economy hot until it blows, then Dems get voted in to clean up. People get annoyed about taxes and regulation when economy is ok again, fun dad promises ice cream and pizza for dinner forever.. rinse & repeat.

Carter gave up the presidency to save America then. Volcker did the right thing.

The bigger picture being that this is political nonsense. We all know Reganomics.

Reagan supported those interest rate changes. Reagan than continued to push deficit spending well after the recovery from those first couple years, a huge lasting trend in Republican administrations ever since.

It's also very hard to assume that Reagan being elected in 76 would've avoided the oil-driven inflation at the end of that decade.

But of course, we've decided as a country/media to generally blame Biden for non-policy factors that put the economy on a wild bullwhip ride from 2020-to-2023ish, soooooo... maybe Reagan can deal with getting the blame for the inflation too!

The fact that consecutive Republican administrations in this graph fared even worse suggests that is not the case.

> Surely some of that is lag time in economic policy

Why? What if constantly launching foreign wars, leveraging up the financial system and running up deficits isn’t sound economic policy?

The consecutive GOP events don't seem to point to that.

And the president has enormous influence over what congress does (veto).

Of course everything is nuanced; the trend is merely interesting especially juxtaposed against people consistently voting for republicans for "economic" reasons.

That’s unless you have a Congress that lets the President usurp the pose of the purse that should be theirs and Supreme Court that rubber stamps everything he does

I'm not so sure either have much impact. Economic policy doesn't change much between administrations and Congress has been ineffective for a long time. Politics is mostly culture war things these days.

The Fed seems to be the big driver of the economy. Other than that, the government is moving things at the margins. Even Trumps tariff shenanigans don't seem to have rocked the boat much.

And Congress is controlled by the president as overriding a veto is extremely difficult.

Except they have abdicated most responsibility, especially when the president is of the same party, for decades.

Many now talk like they work for the president.

Thanks for providing actual data and contributing to the discussion instead of the knee-jerk responses in the rest of the replies here.

The charts paint a much more precise picture on what is happening, and I actually don't see anything that strongly support it being a partisan effect.

>CES establishment payroll survey monthly change averages is quite the choice of stats lol.

Can you explain why? Given that it's presumably averaged over the president's entire term, doesn't that provide a good measure of how much jobs were added under a given administration?

Joe Biden "created" jobs the way covid "created" job vacancies. Maybe time periods with worldwide upheaval should be taken with a little salt.

Joe Biden also presided over the largest America that ever existed, and took power at a moment when a huge rebound in jobs was inevitable.

> I mean, part of this is just math. If a government spends more, it’s literally injecting money into the economy, so of course you get more jobs and growth in the short term.

Thats not necessarily true. During Bill Clinton's presidency he cut the deficits and the debt and yet the economy saw very strong job growth.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-und...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presi...

I’m not sure how true this is given that both Clinton and Obama cut the deficits and in Obama’s case he did it despite complaints from the left.

Democratic administrations see less spending growth, though. Definitely not more. Look it up.

You're confusing rhetoric with policy.

If you think republicans lowered spending I have a bridge to sell. See two Santas strategy.

Or Covid when roughly 22 million jobs were lost in March and April 2020 alone

9/11, 2008, and now AI job displacement is also bad luck

Many publications have made that claim about a Russian hack. Is it inaccurate?

Ok, but there were also 36+ months prior to covid in Trump's first presidency...

We did this to ourselves. Let’s not make excuses.

would you care to clarify on this? are you saying the current administration has been corrupted by foreign adverseries? or has the administration been outsmarted by foreign adverseries?

The population grows exponentially. Why would you think the system would work against that?

Ideally our political systems act as a sigmoid filter over the growth, benefits, and harms

I'm unconvinced of the AI impact outside of the tech sector. But there's certainly a lot of uncertainty generally. Probably more senior people with reputations are in a better position but likely tougher for people with no records.

As it turns out, no one wants to invest in infrastructure when all the inputs are going to be tariffed to oblivion. All else equal why invest in USA when you could invest somewhere where you can import the needed inputs much cheaper? Protectionism isn't enough to overcome losing access to world markets.

Eventually the protected industries will be totally disconnected from global markets causing them to lose global competitiveness, to the point they cannot even compete with the black market markups. And then you are maga, er mega, fucked.

Priced right if money is moving from the bottom 90% to the top 10%. Stock market growth is because theres excess money and people need to invest the money. Supply and demand. There's reason why you can buy any ultra luxury car right(look at ferrari's revenue growth) and private jet industry is booming.

> maybe nothing is priced right

What does "priced right" even mean? For whom? When a public company makes billions in profits by selling insanely overpriced hardware, then that's "priced right" for the shareholders.

When a supermarket gives out 25% discount stickers to use, then the price of the good is closer to being priced right for the consumer, as long as you apply the sticker. There is, of course, no reason to assume that the supermarket would operate at a loss or close to cost. These 25% are already priced in and anyone not using the stickers is paying extra.

Nothing has been priced right ever since they've (the collective of anyone willing to sell something) figured out that they can ask for however-much people are willing to pay, which is quite more than what MY FELLOW HUMANS would need to pay.

For everyone else, who aren't willing to pay deliberately inflated prices, there's usually always some form of discount for some product, somewhere to be found.

I agree with your opposition to the comment above, but I feel like the condescension towards silicon valley, and non-government employees is not a way to start a healthy dialogue. Like you are not going to convince anybody by calling 80+% of people here (private sector employees) "a joke".

I agree that randos on twitter are a bad source of information.

The original roll out of Healthcare.gov is a counterpoint.

Looking at salaries, senior developers working for the government get paid about the same as entry level software engineers who get return offers at BigTech. Well actually senior developers in government only about 10%-20% more.

And even if you did work in pub sec, if you were good, why would you want to work for the government when you can get paid a lot more working in the private sector and consulting for the government?

I know how much senior cloud consultants working at AWS make working in the WWPS. I was there as an l5. Amazon is a shitty place to work. But I doubt it’s any worse than the government right now. GCP and Microsoft (not just Azure) both also pay their consultants a lot more than government employees make.

I’m not saying the government isn’t needed. But the best and the brightest aren’t going to give up the amount of money they can make in the private sector - especially now that government jobs are far from a secure paycheck

Also a good bs indicator: 'illegal alien jobs'. As if the demand vanishes with the poor souls to uganda. It just framing in hope of twisting a win out of it, because if you would have stated that sub-minimum wage jobs are in decline, this would be a terrible economic indicator for the US.

It’s a non trivial question.

Estimates of criminal activity, for example, are frequently counted as GDP in places like the UK. And even if you’re working in violation of visa rules, the IRS will still expect and enforce taxes.

I feel the same way about the article