Talk:Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration

Opening section.

I added this to the opening segment:

"The unemployment rate declined to 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years, 6.6 million jobs were created, including nearly half a million manufacturing jobs, while financial markets saw substantial gains, with the S&P 500 increasing by 47% throughout Trumps first three years."

I provided multiple citations, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500, all of those claims are relevant and true, yet it got deleted. I don't understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.134.229 (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This information is already contained in the body of the article.Farcaster (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just restating it. Giving more context. Other information in the body of the article is restated in the opening section. It makes sense to include it as an overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.134.229 (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It already has more context in the "Overview" section. For example, job creation under Trump 2017-2019 was about 20% slower than the comparable period prior to his inauguration. Stock market return of 47% was slower than a comparable period in Obama's first term, despite a big boost from truly massive corporate tax cuts of nearly one-third. The manufacturing statistic is interesting, but in an economy with 142 million workers, why should it be called out in the lead and is it really exceptional compared to past presidents? Take a look at the similar articles on Obama, Bush 43, and Clinton and see the level of aggregation we tend to use in the leads. P.S. I am impressed that you know how to use FRED!Farcaster (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What 20% slower job creation? The unemployment rate is important and dropped significantly under Trump after Obamas last two years of stagnation. Trump had a higher GDP growth rate 2.5 compared to Obamas 2.2 average (excluding the last year Trump and first year Obama in the minus). Also the GDP per capita growth was higher under Trump. Why you trying to keep important statistics out of the opening segment? 188.112.82.24 (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The S&P 500 increased over twice as fast in Trumps first three years (47%) than it did in Obamas last three (23%). The reason why it increased more in the first three years of Obamas FIRST term is because he inherited a market that had dropped more than 45% since its peak, contrary to Trump who inherited a market that was already high. Thats a totally unfair comparison, so its totally reasonable to include the fact that the market increased by 47% percent, especially since that is substantially more than the increase in the previous three years. As far as jobs are concerned, 6.6 million is more than TRIPPLE what was projected by the CBO for the 2017-2019 period. The reason why it was more in the previous three years is because the lower the unemployment rate is, naturally less jobs are going to be created. Still though, 6.6 million is WAY more than what was projected by the CBO if Obama's policies were to have continued. As far as manufacturing as concerned. There were 475,000 manufacturing jobs created, 64% more than in the previous three years, matter fact in 2016, 6000 manufacturing jobs were lost, and they began increasing again immediately after Trump got elected. Look at the chart. Also, 475,000 is more than ANY president after three years since the Jimmy Carter. All of these are relevant statistics to include in the Opening section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.134.229 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why your analysis sounds persuasive but doesn't withstand rigorous scrutiny. These include that the stock market continued to grow strongly hitting repeated record highs for years, long after the initial bounceback from the Great Recession; manufacturing jobs saw the best sustained growth since the 1970s from 2010 to 2016 and flattened in 2016 primarily due to oil prices plummeting after the ban on oil exports was waived/repealed in 2014/2015 (and the oil equipment sector got pounded, Texas had a slump), then recovered when oil prices increased again, and weaker export markets. I have done analysis of "because the lower the unemployment rate is, naturally less jobs are going to be created" on data from three economic cycles when the UNRATE fell below 4% (1950s, 1960s and 1990s) and found that the theory does not appear to be true in two cycles, and is ambiguous in the third. It sounds intuitively true, and I hear people repeat it, but I don't see the data support it. I welcome seeing any studies that support it. soibangla (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Your right that the stock market was on the upward trend for years, however was significantly slower in Obamas second term than it was in his first. That doesn't take away from the fact that the gain under Trump was more than twice as great as it was in the previous three years. And the fact is, there were more than 3 times as many jobs created than what the CBO projected, and job creation was already slowing down when he took office. 2016, was about 400,000 jobs slower than 2015, which was about 300,000 jobs slower than 2014. And the unemployment rate was not projected to go all the way down to 3.5 percent. And regarding oil prices, did oil prices go up right after Trump got elected? Because thats what would of had to happen in order for your argument to be true.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-30/trump-s-economy-really-was-better-than-obama-s

https://www.wsj.com/articles/remember-the-trump-economy-11598396570

Bias Article

This article is blatantly biased, with too many examples to name here. How do we get it nominated for review? 50.246.108.45 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This entire Wiki posting should be someone's personal blog article. It is not deserving of a Wiki article where uneducated, easily influenced people will view it as authoritative. I nominate it for being removed and replaced with a factual, erudite listing of fiscal and monetary policies under the Trump administration without the author's personal opinion or political views. Heedsnick2023 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is ridiculous. BRENNAN123456 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

Added the neutrality tag. This article is ridiculously biased. According to any standards.

1. Opening paragraph loaded with biased sources like Washington Post, NY times, etc. No Wall Street Journal? Not even BBC or Hill? Really? 2. Opening paragraph completely omits any positive change during 2017-2019 (see 3.), instead tries to harm his image as much as possible 3. Infographics fail to display such thing like GDP grouth rate and GDP per capita growth where Trump clearly beats Obama (without Obama first year and Trump last year) 4. I see no mention of lowering the stagnant Obama last two years unemployment rate.

Its a shame wikipedia fails to uphold the neutrality policy when adressing such important issues. Instead its clear politically biased editotrs roam freely around here. 188.112.82.24 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This is not a neutral article by any reasonable standard. It's an op-ed piece - period. Heedsnick2023 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Heedsnick2023 I encourage you to be WP:BOLD and edit the article. soibangla (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting the POV opening section

The opening section misinterprets one of the few worthy sources it mentions in a highly biased fashion: tries to suggest Trump "inherited" a good economy and nothing more. Clearly false.

Unemployment: The source clearly states a 5.6% historical norm with Trump reaching a 50 year low at 3.5%. Obamas best was at about 4.7% when Trump took office. Trump not only outperformed this by an additional -1.2% (more than Obamas distance from the norm) but signifficantly outperformed the FEDs expectations - something Obama failed to achieve. source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-boom-is-real-11603659361

Adittionaly, the sencion omits virtually anything positive the source mentions. Like "The economy grew somewhat faster under Trump — but not at the rate he promised." On the other hand, ads something negative throughout the entire section. Is this supposed to be Wikipedia neutrality? Its a bad joke.

GDP: Trumps 2017-2019 growth rate was 2.5 compared to Obamas 2.2 growth average (2010-2016)

Literally no mention of the inflation rate.

But its not just the opening section, the entire article seems biased like nothing I have ever seen on wikipedia.

Like "Trump presided over the slowest economic growth of any U.S. president since the Second World War." Really? Clearly contradicts the above mentioned source. Needs to be complety reviewed, fact checked and rewritten. 188.112.120.205 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

First, you're citing a WSJ opinion piece. The UE rate had been steadily declining for seven years before Trump was elected, and after Trump took office it continued declining, albeit at a slower pace.[1] Sure, GDP growth was somewhat higher (0.3 percentage points is only somewhat) but Trump persistently promised a boom like we've never seen before, with at least 3% and maybe as much as 6%, but he never hit either for a full year. His tax cut caused a sugar high that quickly faded, just as economists predicted. The reason inflation isn't mentioned is that it hasn't been a major issue for decades, it had been steadily trending down since 2003, so this was not any sort of Trump accomplishment, it only seems that way to some now because of this inflation surge.[2] "Trump presided over the slowest economic growth of any U.S. president since the Second World War" wasn't true until 2020, then it was. Oh well. soibangla (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Therefore, I suggest rewriting it using these facts instead of narratives to uphold the wikipedia neutrality policy.

- unemployment rate - mention the facts: Obamas kept falling steadily from a record high of 10% in 2009 to 4.8% in jan. 2016, then kept stagnating for almost a year until it reached 4.7 in nov. 2016; Trumps one started to fall instantly from 4.7 in jan. 2017 to a 50 year record low of 3.5 in sep. 2019 when it started to stagnate until it started to rise enormously in march 2020 because of the pandemic

- although an oponion article, Lawrence B. Lindsey - a highly relevant person on economics uses a factual statement of Trump significantly outperforming FEDs expectations

- review and rewrite the article using the facts instead of narratives principle

- the "somewhat higher GDP growth" has to be mentioned in the opening section as well to couter the otherwise negative bias, Im OK with the negative facts as long as they are factually true, just want neutrality, not a selective reality propaganda here on wikipedia

- "′Trump presided over the slowest economic growth of any U.S. president since the Second World War′ wasn't true until 2020, then it was." Every serious source distinguishes between the first 3 years and Covid year crisis. Putting them togeather like this article does is highly biased and intelectually dishonest.

188.112.70.156 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, we could also mention the facts that private sector job creation and real working-class wage growth were significantly lower during Trump's first three years than during the preceding three years (I'm omitting Trump's fourth year for what I hope is an obvious reason). The reality is that despite Trump hollering hundreds of times that his economy was the best in history, all things considered it was a continuance of a long recovery he inherited, and in some significant ways it was worse, which could arguably be because the long recovery was finally fizzling out. The centerpiece of his policy, the tax cut, may have caused a brief sugar high, but it certainly didn't a create a boom. Naturally, if one exists inside the conservative media bubble they'll never hear any of this, which might explain why they complain about this article because it doesn't confirm what Fox News told them.

The "somewhat higher GDP growth" of 0.3 ppts is not significant and when you look at history you see it could be attributable to nothing more than random variance. Numbers bounce up and down a lot. If he got it to 3%+, that might be notable, and it certainly would be if he sustained it for 2+ years, but neither happened.

BTW, the primary reason 2016 softened a bit was due to Texas oil exploration/drilling pulling back because of declining crude prices (good for gas prices) which had a ripple effect through the heavy equipment supply chain, and thus Texas GDP and jobs.[3][4] That, and softer global export markets. soibangla (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"but it certainly didn't a create a boom" Tax cuts in general, never create booms. That is not Trump's failure, such policy never works to begin with. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Im ok with the negative as long as its true and doesnt try to create a selective reality by censoring facts.

GDP this is an important one

Reagan 2nd term had a 3.85 growth avg., Bush Sr. had 2.25, Clinton a 3.89, Bush Jr. 2.2 (1st term 2.35, 2nd term 2.05), Obama a 2.2 (1st term 2.13, 2nd term 2.28).

Trumps 2.5 is clearly above the "standard" 2.2-something club.

The source clearly states in the opening sentence of the Growth section:

"The economy grew somewhat faster under Trump — but not at the rate he promised." This has to be adressed in the wikipedia opening section to give a fairly neutral view of such an important issue in economics.

With all the ostensive mentioning of the deficit (2 times with even a separate paragraph), no health insurance people, even projected income inequality (where the actual numbers?) and ridiculous biased statements like "Trump took office at the height of the longest economic expansion in American history." (not true, there was temporary setback for about a year when he took office) and "Analysis has suggested that the economy would have grown without any intervention by the Trump administration." (of course it would, it almost alwasy does, the question is slower ort faster?) there has to be a GDP and umemployment sentence in the opening section to reduce the ridiculous level of bias and propaganda. 188.112.84.183 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no bias or propaganda here. "The economy grew somewhat faster under Trump" is accurate, by 0.3 percentage points, which is not significant, which is why it isn't notable for the lead. It would be notable for the lead if, like Biden, he saw 5.7% GDP growth in his first year, the best in 40 years. "Trump took office at the height of the longest economic expansion in American history" is accurate (zoom in and out of this[5] around recessions; the softening in 2016 did not end the expansion, it reduced the rate of expansion, but GDP continued to rise. soibangla (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Lol. "by 0.3 percentage points, which is not significant" is your opinion, no original research here. The source does mention it in the opening sentence (for a reason i guess), so should wikipedia. Its also clearly above the 2.2-something of the last 3 out of 4 presidents. And he did beat Feds forecast (https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20171213.htm) by quite a lot (unlike Obama).

"It would be notable for the lead if, like Biden, he saw 5.7%" LOL the post pandemic swing effect? Really? 2022 and 2023 far below at 1.7 arent, they? https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20220615.pdf

Quit the bias. What the source states is a fair view on an important topic. (Trump also outperformed Feds forecasts - by quite a lot in 2018) 188.112.84.183 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, anyone else has objections to my intended rewriting (other than user Soibangla with his edit history) ? 188.112.84.183 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you to edit the article to your liking and see how it goes. I'm done here. soibangla (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Want to leave this discussion open for some time until after the capitol hearings so that anyone can discuss this topic free of emotions. Meanwhile, anyone can point out objetions to my intended corrections. 188.112.115.64 (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)