Ya conservatives are good at selling snake oil and their voters are easy to fool. They have a thing against celebrities but voted for a pedo entertainer. No values at all just trying to grab power and oppress people.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you".
President Obama in 2010 once half joked: "I also want to point out, by the way, when you want to go forward in a car, what do you do? You put it in “D.” When you want to go backwards, you put it in “R.”
Why does it have to do anything with a vehicle? We are talking about political parties and our country. Using a vehicle in an analogy is as relevant as using life & death.
Because that how the structure of Obama’s joke worked. Yours is just a sloppy “hurr durr, life and death”, no cleverness or cheekiness to it whatsoever.
What do you mean? They’re great for business. They’re great at funneling money from the pockets of the poor into the pockets of rich business owners. That’s what they’re for. It’s not their fault that the workers think “good for business” means “good for the workers”. /s
Hell, they have so propagandized the American public that I wouldn't be surprised that a good 30-40% of democrats believe that. The Reagan economic bump carries way too much weight.
They blame democrats for stubbing their toes but can’t put any responsibility on the gop ever. This is the part of their propaganda machine that drives me crazy!!! Why do they only care about the left? Why don’t they expect their own representatives to represent them? Is it really just enough to give them someone to hate?
The how is easy enough, conservatives are good for buisness owners. They pass policies that help the rich make more money and that makes the stock market rise which is what cable news, owned by buisnesses owners, reports on. Measurements for how the people are doing simply don't matter. Thats why they say America first not Americans first because they don't actually care about the people.
Juice the stock earnings? Certainly not any stocks Ive seen. The S&P 500 has been slowing down for a couple months now, and its even starting to fall recently.
Americans have been brainwashed for decades that low government spending* and low taxes is good for the economy. The same thing happened with guns, the Second Amendment, and Christianity. Americans are constantly lied to, they start believing it, then it becomes part of the American mythos. It's happening right in front of our very eyes and no one notices it.
*The "Republicans don't actually honor the low government spending" crap liberals say is meaningless in this discussion. Americans think they do, when they cut healthcare, food stamps, etc. And that's all that matters.
The two most pro-business bill packages of the last 50 years were both negotiated and signed by separate Trump administrations, one in 2017, and one in 2025. More pro-business than anything passed by W, HW, Clinton, Obama, Biden, and yes even Reagan.
I don't think you've got a firm grip on very recent American history.
Tariffs are main policy of trump, it’s the only thing he really seems to value. I think you grip on what’s going on isn’t firm. You think business likes tariffs?
There's a reason nearly 100% of CEOs support Trump, he paid them all handsomely. Just a heads up, lying about policies that have been passed doesn't magically change those policies, son.
Edit: Ah, checked your comment history, you're very far right and pro-business. You're knowingly spreading disinformation because you know how disastrous your policies are. I get it.
Son, if you could read and were willing to engage in good faith, you'd know what I posted projected over $130 billion in free money given away to corporations in just the first year of the OBBBA. Meanwhile, according to literally every measurement publicized so far, over 90% of the burden of tariffs have been passed on to American consumers.
Please tell me how, specifically, that additional $130 billion given to corporations hurts those corporations son.
I miss the Democrats, sure they were bad at business, but they were not actively trying to burn business to the ground like the GOP is for every business that is not an AI company or connected to Trump
Businesses do not expand and hire more people simply because their tax rates are lower. Supply and demand isn't impacted by the inheritance tax rate, lmfao.
"Businesses do not expand and hire more people simply because their tax rates are lower."
Yup. On the contrary they are more prone to expand and hire if they feel confident in the financial health of the country. The 90s boom was aided, in part, by Clinton eliminating the deficit and producing a surplus. Massive deficits and historic debt that result from useless tax cuts increase risk and reduce confidence.
There was a significantly lowered price of oil in the mid to late 90s. Consequently, inputs requiring oil were cheaper.
Massive job growth associated with the advent of the “information economy.” Btw, that is a term I haven’t heard in decades. Takes me back.
Baby boomers were in their prime working years. This the “dependency ratio” was very favorable. Fast forward 30 years and that ratio isn’t so favorable. In 1996, it was 53.04%; in 2025 it has risen to 55%. Small, but significant.
Finally, reduced federal spending with the draw down of Cold War spending.
So, lower costs associated with a major economic input (oil, which includes energy costs as well as fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fabrics and materials. Higher labor force participation. Technological breakout (it is difficult for younger folks to understand how radical the internet changed world is compared to the before time). All that boosted the economy, which in turn boosted federal revenues.
Clinton was extremely fortunate to have been president during this period.
It is worth noting that the period was also a bubble. A bubble that burst in 2000, the peak of it all being 10 March, 2000. The bust that followed was brutal. It sucked.
There was also no major crisis. This century had 2000, 2008, 2020. Although the first mostly affected the stock market, the second the stock and labour market, the last was brutal from the pov of inflation and definitely consolidated the idea that there is no way the US govt can repay the massive debt.
I was a reporter and our Rep Foxx kept whining about people losing their family farms because of death taxes and I asked her find me one instance so I could write about it. Crickets.
Foxx is the worst. This is completely off topic, but her behavior during Helene and intentionally leaving a family stranded because she wouldn't let them traverse her land and intact road was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. In a time while we were all helping our neighbors, she asked "What's in it for me?" and then the district fucking re-elected her.
Oh having grown up in Worst Carolina, and now living in North Carolina for the past two years after moving back from the west coast, I had no illusions of the personalities and disappointments I'd be surrounded by living in rural NC. I had thought that maybe Helene would wake some people up having volunteered in the Burke and McDowell rescue and supply operations, but the moment the propaganda machine started feeding total lies and nonsense to the people least equipped to think critically about it I knew that the "New South" was a myth.
The reality is that on a given day, many of the people I would otherwise consider good honest folks are moments away from one piece of confirmation bias turning them into some of the worst people I've ever seen. It's really scary for anyone who has read and internalized things like "They Thought They Were Free"
Most people would be ok with inheritance tax when someone inherits a multi-million dollar business that manufactures widgets.
But change Acme Corporation to "family farm" and suddenly inheritance tax is a great injustice!
I have no problem with inheritance taxes for the very wealthy, regardless of the the type of business. A $14 million dollar farm is just another corporation.
They also get a step-up in cost basis so that usually offsets a huge proportion of the taxes.
Maybe we should just end step-up in cost basis instead of having an estate tax. The rich will continually bitch about their tax burden though regardless.
Also, put a 3% annual fee on all equity lines of credit (ELOC) so that the rich can just continuously avoid paying taxes on their gains.
The federal estate tax exemption this year is $15 million ($30 million for married couples). Large-scale family farms with over $1 million in annual gross income make up only 4% of all farms, and their median family net worth was recently $2.8 million, not even close to owing estate tax. On top of that, farms have multiple ways to avoid estate taxes if they're passing the farm on to the next generation, like using LLC's to distribute ownership and placing assets in irrevocable trusts. The claim that estate taxes are a threat to family farms just isn't credible.
Is this article well researched sarcasm? It’s very funny if that’s the case.
“That means that in 2025, the estate of any farmer or rancher with a net worth over $13.99 million, if owned by an individual owner, or $27.98 million if owned by a married couple, must file an estate tax return within 9 months of their passing”
>Businesses do not expand and hire more people simply because their tax rates are lower.
You'd think we would have learned this when literally every economist said the TCJA was a massive policy failure.
To recap it for the uninitiated: Trump killed roughly 20% ($500 billion in just 2024 taxes) in yearly corporate taxes and we received a standard 2-3% GDP growth and very weak wage growth for the next 3 years. This was far below even the most skeptical and conservative estimates. Not to mention he ended up raising the deficit because he couldn't fund his own tax increases.
With 0 requirements or guidelines there was no reason for corporations to change anything. Corporate tax cuts could theoretically work if some type of effort was put into policing wage/job growth. For anecdotal reference, my company heavily supported the cuts, told us it would be good for the entire "company family", received the full tax cuts, and continued giving raises that barely hit COL adjustments due to inflation. They had the gall to wonder why I left lol
The narrative around taxes and how businesses and people will react to them is so incredibly flawed. It defies common sense. Atlas Shrugged did a number on a few generations.
0.7% annualized is anemic growth. Along with an ~3% core inflation rate, this fits the definition of stagflation. Yet, I don't hear any media outlets talking about it. I guess facts don't matter anymore, just what color jersey one wears. It's pathetic that a large portion of the electorate cheers for their political party in the same way they cheer for their favorite sports team.
Come on man. Just because they aren't blaring it doesn't mean they aren't talking about it.
I don't think we're in 1970s style stagflation yet. That was higher inflation and higher unemployment than what we have currently. But if this war drags on, I can definitely see us getting there.
Are we that fucking far gone that you can't even read the entire headline in context, let alone the article itself, and have to resort to cherrypicking a word from the headline to insinuate something else?
The article is literally entirely about the threat of stagflation and provides economic analysis around it. It's discussed plenty.
It's funny how the data is real when they make Trump look bad. But no, this is not yet stagflation. Aside from unemployment still being low, stagflation is defined by being persistent. This isn't pattern until we see it play over the course of at least a whole quarter. It's slightly possible we are beginning a stagflationary cycle but it's way too soon to declare it here.
You have to admire the government employees who release this data. They’re putting their jobs and their agency on the line for what I hope is accurate economic data. Wait for the administration to kill the messenger. In our constant slide toward authoritarianism, inconvenient facts are merely fake news to be silenced.
This administration is one of the worst and most corrupt ever, but I have to point out the hypocrisy of redditors on this sub. Whenever there's any positive numbers, everyone is quick to claim they're made up. But whenever there's bad numbers, everyone blindly trusts it and now your comment is praising the officials releasing the numbers.
100%. You realize how many trolls hang out here. They've argued basic facts in the BLS when it makes Biden look bad. Even when you include the link to the past data, they ignore it and continue hate-posting
Most people straight up do not understand the processes behind data collection at the BLS or BEA, and often going so far as not understanding what basic figures like GDP, CPI even measure.
It is crazy the amount of times I've had to explain what "real" (inflation adjusted) data is, in an economics sub of all places.
Well they do put their finger on the scale in a lot of these monthly and quarterly type reports. Most people don’t understand where there is insulation and non qualified trump cronies can fudge the numbers and where they can’t. The safe bet with this admin is that they’re lying about everything
Nobody is talking about the last 15 years. Trump, in the last year, has changed everything. Anyone who pushes back at all is fired. Everyone has to swear loyalty to Trump. There is no more loyalty to the constitution or to the citizens. It is all Trump. I would trust nothing that comes out of the Trump government.
>Nobody is talking about the last 15 years. Trump, in the last year, has changed everything.
You've misread me. I am pointing out that every single BLS Commissioner from the last 15 years has explicitly and recently said that you can still trust the BLS.
Here, go read my other comment for yourself. Quotes and links included. And these are primarily Democrat-aligned economists, with all of them criticising Trump's firing of McEntarfer.
If the economic reporting is so untrustworthy, you've got some explaining to do as to why the four of the most qualified people on the planet to assess it all disagree with you.
ok, Econ friends, here’s something i wish I knew: does gdp growth include inflation? if gdp goes up 3% at the same time inflation runs 3%, is net growth zero?
Depends on if it's nominal GDP or real GDP. That's nominal GDP in your example. Nominal GDP is calculated using inflated pricing but real GDP uses a 'deflator factor' to try and look at the economy growth without inflation. This is the Real GDP revision in the article
If nominal GDP would grow by 3% but inflation also increases by 3% then the real growth rate you'd see in reports and articles would state "0% growth". Real GDP growth is always reported as all the growth past the point of inflation.
You're a bit confused here about terminology. "Real" figures like real GDP or real wage growth do use constant dollar figures, but that's the reason why they include inflation.
The constant dollar figures means that they adjust the 2025 reading to account for the change in value for 2025 dollars. A nominal reading of the GDP growth from 2024 to 2025 has a reading in 2024 dollars and a reading in 2025 dollars and just computes the difference between the two. Real GDP instead normalizes the two readings into a singular constant dollar value (meaning accounting for inflation) and then computes the difference.
Build up your emergency fund people. No one knows when a slow down is going to happen. We just know that they happen and you want to be ready when it does.
Take those popular Atlanta Fed projections with a grain of salt. They had it at 5.4% a month into the year, later revising it down to 3.0%. Plenty using those early projections to claim the economy was great.
"January 26, 2026
The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the fourth quarter of 2025 is 5.4 percent on January 26"
Just wait until the fed removes seven trillion from their balance, raises rates exponentially to get the required deflation to get to a 2% average, then they have to print nine trillion and short everything the touched over the last fifteen years then we have to pay back 40 trillion in debt. Fair and free market capitalism and all. The market gets below zero pretty quick.
So these numbers initially come out, look way ridiculous and people on Reddit say so.
Then Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies start berating everybody on Reddit as a bunch of mouth breathing basement dwellers for suggesting they're bullshit. "They can't be fixed! You're doing a disservice spreading lies....yadda yadda"
Then months later, extreme revisions come down that show we were right.
Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies should probably STFU about how stupid the rest of us are and acknowlege the cheap parlor trick Trump is pulling with the BLS. It's obvious they're initially putting out crap so he can take credit for the "greatest economy ever", then revising them to cover their ass.
Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies once again telling me how stupid we all are in 5.....4......
>Then months later, extreme revisions come down that show we were right.
This was quite literally Trump's logic for firing McEntarfer; he accused the Biden admin of rigging good jobs numbers at first then later revising them down by large margins.
It wasn't sound logic when Trump used it, and it's not sound now.
>Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies should probably STFU about how stupid the rest of us are and acknowlege the cheap parlor trick Trump is pulling with the BLS.
This is a BEA report, not BLS...
>Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies once again telling me how stupid we all are in 5.....4......
I don't think I've ever seen someone take quite so much pride on not being qualified on a technical subject, but you do you.
Hard to find a chart, but this appears to be the largest single revision ever in US quarterly GDP. This doesn't reinforce the claim that the numbers aren't being manipulated.
haha. You can easily google bigger ones under Obama for example:
Second Quarter 2010: The initial estimate of 2.4% growth was revised down to 1.6% in the second report (a decrease of 0.8 percentage points). This downward revision was largely due to a surge in imports."
Q1 2011:Â The initial estimate of 1.8% or 1.9% was revised down significantly to 0.4% in the second estimate, reflecting slower consumer spending and lower inventory investment.
but the biggest ones were probably in 2008
Q4 2008:Â The first estimate of a -3.8% annual rate was revised to a -6.2% decline in the second estimate.
haha. Revisions above 1% are considered large with 0.4%-0.5% being typical. The only huge revision you had was from the Bush admin which makes it look like you accidentally agreed with the other guy’s suspicions .
Wow you really can't admit you lost this one. I cherry picked one because you can ask google AI yourself and see the full list. You are so d--- that you made me look up more and there are more bad revisions under Obama such as
Q1 2014: Harsh winter weather led to a massive downward revision from an initial estimate of -0.1% to a final reading of -2.9%.
Q1 2011:Â The initial estimate of 1.8% or 1.9% was revised down significantly to 0.4% in the second estimate, reflecting slower consumer spending and lower inventory investment.
So you're TDS dug you a hole. You are complaining about TRump revisions now admit they are small, with that fake threshold you set
I’m not the OP -my comments to you were neutral . Sorry if pointing out you made a mistake hurt your feelings. You could reply to the original guy with a list of larger revision by magnitude or percentage.
what feelings were hurt? I don't get that part. You keep trying to build an anti_Trump case but fail miserably. No we can't fake the numbers to fit a weird agenda on an ECONOMICS sub
And we know these numbers are always rigged to appear better than they are so my guess is the growth was actually negative and inflation is around 8-9% or so
The numbers are real. You obviously have no clue just how transparent the calculations are. Its not like the White House makes up a number and tells people what to report.
I also think that they are real, for now. But it is troubling that the person at the top and most of the people at the next level or two below them would have no issue whatsoever with publishing completely fake numbers.
The middle managers and line employees in the federal government still have integrity, but the people at the top are doing everything they can to erode that.
If that were true then the revision would be small relative to the original report, which also used a transparent process. The last several administrations have been cooking the numbers to fit their agenda. 10+ year old data for research purposes is probably reasonably accurate, but anything closer than that is for headlines only.
Utter nonsense, literally every analyst and anyone who works with economic data from private to public and from national to international businesses would notice if there was anything resembling a concerted effort to doctor economic reports.
>If that were true then the revision would be small relative to the original report
It's literally the opposite.
Some level of revision is exactly what you'd expect from a staggered estimate process like this where you issue preliminary estimates with much less data, whereas you wouldn't expect a bureau rigging the figures to draw attention to themselves or make themselves look bad by revising the numbers down.
The numbers are as transparent as the pre-war intel that said there was WMD in Iraq
Transparent doesn’t mean they aren’t manipulated. For example, removing gas from the basket of items used to calculation inflation would artificially lower the number. These are the types of con games routinely played by the failed ruling class.
The macroeconomic numbers are ALWAYS rigged to be better than they actually are and that’s just the way it is
I remain amazed that anyone believes these figures. The analysts produce numbers based on poor data, these numbers are very likely adjusted to make them seem believable. Pretty sure the liars in charge are continuing to lie. They can't even think of producing accurate reports now.
>I remain amazed that anyone believes these figures.
That's because you lack any kind of economic qualification, while the experts who actually read the reports and work with these agencies all understand why the reports are good quality and virtually impossible to manipulate.
Ah yes, nothing like opening Reddit to read the morning economic news and seeing a troll with a blocked post history claim that anyone who questions the Trump government line is a fool
Just my daily reminder of how absolutely unserious this site is
>and seeing a troll with a blocked post history claim that anyone who questions the Trump government line is a fool
Hey, don't take my word for it!
Why don't you take the word of every BLS Commissioner for the last ~15 years, instead? (3 of which were Democrat admin appointees)
Here's Will Wiatrowski, the current Acting Commissioner of the BLS. He got the job automatically by virtue of being Deputy Commissioner since 2015 under Obama:
And here's a co-signed statement from both Will Beach and Erica Groshen, the two previous BLS Commissioners before McEntarfer. We're now going back to 2013:
I also pointed out in another response that Paul Krugman also recently did an interview explicitly saying the books-cooking conspiracy theories (and yes, he uses that term himself) are wrong.
Sorry for being 'unserious'. Which reputable economists do you follow that have alleged the data is manipulated? Do you have better citations? You're on an economics sub, so you'll need to cite some evidence.
Sorry bud, but you, like all other trolls who block their post history have nothing meaningful to offer to any conversation, and aren't worth my time in the slightest, other than to mock
Your sole purpose here is to cause dissent among people who are actually here in good faith, the fact that you had those links ready to go within a single minute certainly does not help your cause at all and I have zero interest in wasting my time on a conservative troll today. I don't recommend anyone else does either
>Sorry bud, but you, like all other trolls who block their post history have nothing meaningful to offer to any conversation, and aren't worth my time in the slightest, other than to mock
I'm the one who just provided directly relevant quotes from reputable economic experts to back up my views, while you're the one doing nothing more than hurling insults and personal attacks.
What's the saying? Every accusation is a confession, hmm?
It's fine if you don't want to talk. I didn't ask you to respond to me, and you don't have to. But those are the opinions of the last 4 BLS Commissioners (plus Krugman!) whether you like it or not.
The most effective propaganda and lies always contain nuggets of truth. The fact that you are posting some quotes from economists does not in any way address the fact that you are here solely to troll people, and you block your post history to avoid being held to account for the things that you've said in the past, so as to more effectively advance your goal without people being able to spot it easily
A waste of everybody's time, and not somebody who is here in good faith, no matter what you say
>The most effective propaganda and lies always contain nuggets of truth. The fact that you are posting some quotes from economists...
Nuggets of truth, huh?
That's some impressive mental gymnastics to rationalise away the opinion of the most qualified economic experts on earth to assess this matter, directly stating that we can still trust the economic data and that concerns about political manipulation are unfounded.
Is the "nugget" of truth here that reputable economists trust the data, then? Seems like a pretty fatal concession for you to make if your position is that the data can't be trusted.
>...does not in any way address the fact that you are here solely to troll people, and you block your post history to avoid being held to account for the things that you've said in the past, so as to more effectively advance your goal without people being able to spot it easily
Again, literally all you've done is post personal attacks against me, while I've directly cited relevant expert opinion.
(Indeed, 4 of the 5 cited economists are Dem-aligned, particularly Krugman; go read his Substack. It's not like I'm posting analysis from a conservative think tank or something, despite your accusation that I must be a conservative.)
You've had plenty of opportunity now to provide contrary evidence or expert opinion, yet all that you have chosen to do is hurl insults. Perhaps it's time for you to do some introspection about whether you've any right to cast stones.
But since you believe I'm a waste of your time, I'll do you the favour and just block you. You're welcome to go read / watch the interviews I linked. Ciao!
That's good, you've managed to name one economist. Care to name others? I can name one who believes directly the opposite (and who has direct experience with the BLS): Erica Groshen. In fact, Krugman and Groshen had a discussion about just this issue, here's part of it (unable to provide source due to automod - its Krugman's blog):
>Krugman: I really feel bad asking a former BLS commissioner, “what do we do if we can no longer trust the BLS?” But, what would be the things to do? And how would we know?
>Groshen: Think about the norms of these surveys and this exercise that the agency goes through every month to produce these things. It's really highly automated. So all of the thought and the judgment has gone into designing the programs and the processes for getting those numbers out the door in trustworthy form. That's the real genius of the process, if you wanted to muck with them, you're going to have to throw a wrench into that process, and that would be visible. Things would come out late, they wouldn't add up. They would have to change the tables, and just changing the tables to add or subtract a line can take two or three months at the BLS because they have to make sure that everything still comes out right and looks right. When the numbers come in, there's a certain amount of checking and then suddenly, they're producing hundreds of tables.
>Krugman: We'd probably be hearing from whistleblowers as well.
>Groshen: That's the other part. There'd be resistance from the staff. These are the most dedicated, modest data nerds on the face of the earth, right? They choose to do this because they know it's important and they really care about it. That culture is really strong at BLS. You would get leaks, resignations, whistleblowers, refusal to implement these changes.
So they agree, while it's not good to have attacks on statistical agencies, the data remains reliable. They both agree that many of the issues with reliability come down to funding over the last 1-2 decades, rather than any particular recent event.
I believe these numbers are accurate but are heavily inflated by all the AI related nonsense going on to mean much to the average person. Too many companies shoveling billions back and forth which makes the numbers hard to track throughly. Data centers are also extremely expensive which helps GDP growth. Almost every economic outlook has attributed economic growth to AI and it is very clear it is the only thing making us look like we are growing.
Without AI related growth we are probably at -2% or -3% roughy.
I also don't trust the stat of .7% growth...just enough to avoid the first of two consecutive quarters of what would fit the textbook definition of a recession.
The_Keg | 7 hours ago
Republican/Conservatives = good at Business.
extremely prevalent take among dip shit conservative from around the globe. Especially the global south.
edit: Does any of you even know what the phrase "Global South" means lol?
Thegangsterle | 7 hours ago
Ya conservatives are good at selling snake oil and their voters are easy to fool. They have a thing against celebrities but voted for a pedo entertainer. No values at all just trying to grab power and oppress people.
Maleficent-Bug7998 | 6 hours ago
They're straight up bad people full stop.
And to all the "preachers" surrounding trump like he's the second coming 🤮
Elizabeth-WildFox886 | 6 hours ago
They all appear to support raping children.
Freud-Network | 3 hours ago
That's Christianity's oldest pastime.
areallyfunnyusername | 6 hours ago
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you".
LBJ
naijaboiler | 6 hours ago
> trying to grab power and oppress people.
That's what they really are about. conserving power structures that keep them at the top.
ylfcm | 4 hours ago
Fourth quarter, hmm..Wasn’t that the quarter where they declared trump the winner?
Quirky_Spend_9648 | 6 hours ago
President Obama in 2010 once half joked: "I also want to point out, by the way, when you want to go forward in a car, what do you do? You put it in “D.” When you want to go backwards, you put it in “R.”
ThemeBig6731 | 6 hours ago
D = Death, R = Revival, another half joke that conveys the exact opposite.
Quirky_Spend_9648 | 5 hours ago
Except it's not exactly accurate economically, which is why the quote struck me as relevant.
ThemeBig6731 | 5 hours ago
9.1% inflation in June 2022 didn't seem to you that we are spiraling towards death economically?
onebihberger | 4 hours ago
I can't quite remember , but it's almost like there was a big shock to the economy right around then. Must be my imagination
viperabyss | 4 hours ago
Nice of you to ignore the historical context.
I bet you also tout how cheap oil was in April 2020...
hamfish11 | 4 hours ago
Ignorant by choice is the worst kind of ignorance lol you know what youre doing
ThemeBig6731 | 2 hours ago
Did Biden know what he was doing? I have my doubts about Trump, I will say it openly.
2wedfgdfgfgfg | 5 hours ago
But Trump is destroying USA so that makes no sense.
RendertheFatCap | 4 hours ago
Oh wow ya'll, the world's funniest Republican showed up
Sweet-Rabbit | 5 hours ago
Except it doesn’t work as part of the joke because those aren’t positions in a vehicle.
ThemeBig6731 | 5 hours ago
Why does it have to do anything with a vehicle? We are talking about political parties and our country. Using a vehicle in an analogy is as relevant as using life & death.
Sweet-Rabbit | 4 hours ago
Because that how the structure of Obama’s joke worked. Yours is just a sloppy “hurr durr, life and death”, no cleverness or cheekiness to it whatsoever.
ProfessionalOil2014 | 7 hours ago
What do you mean? They’re great for business. They’re great at funneling money from the pockets of the poor into the pockets of rich business owners. That’s what they’re for. It’s not their fault that the workers think “good for business” means “good for the workers”. /s
makemeking706 | 7 hours ago
It seems you accidentally suggested you were being sarcastic.
ProfessionalOil2014 | 6 hours ago
The sarcastic part is that “it’s not their fault” it absolutely is their fault.
JimTheSaint | 7 hours ago
They are great for those 1% of businesses and shit for anyone else
ReserveFormal3910 | 7 hours ago
Hell, they have so propagandized the American public that I wouldn't be surprised that a good 30-40% of democrats believe that. The Reagan economic bump carries way too much weight.
-XanderCrews- | 6 hours ago
They blame democrats for stubbing their toes but can’t put any responsibility on the gop ever. This is the part of their propaganda machine that drives me crazy!!! Why do they only care about the left? Why don’t they expect their own representatives to represent them? Is it really just enough to give them someone to hate?
Pretend-Marsupial258 | 5 hours ago
> They blame democrats for stubbing their toes but can’t put any responsibility on the gop ever.
Only Democrats have agency in the US. If the Republicans do something bad, it only happened because the Dems didn't try hard enough to stop them.
downfall67 | 7 hours ago
Republicans are good at grifting
Straight_Document_89 | 6 hours ago
They’ve somehow have convinced the voters of this and it’s absolutely not true.
PirateSanta_1 | 4 hours ago
The how is easy enough, conservatives are good for buisness owners. They pass policies that help the rich make more money and that makes the stock market rise which is what cable news, owned by buisnesses owners, reports on. Measurements for how the people are doing simply don't matter. Thats why they say America first not Americans first because they don't actually care about the people.
Jamstarr2024 | 7 hours ago
They’re really good as passing stimulus packages for the top to juice stock earnings.
Mr_Industrial | 6 hours ago
Juice the stock earnings? Certainly not any stocks Ive seen. The S&P 500 has been slowing down for a couple months now, and its even starting to fall recently.
Jamstarr2024 | 6 hours ago
I meant* they tend to. Trump is another animal of stupidity.
Fixed a word
Suitable-Economy-346 | 6 hours ago
Americans have been brainwashed for decades that low government spending* and low taxes is good for the economy. The same thing happened with guns, the Second Amendment, and Christianity. Americans are constantly lied to, they start believing it, then it becomes part of the American mythos. It's happening right in front of our very eyes and no one notices it.
*The "Republicans don't actually honor the low government spending" crap liberals say is meaningless in this discussion. Americans think they do, when they cut healthcare, food stamps, etc. And that's all that matters.
Nuckfan91 | 4 hours ago
Trump hardly has conservative pro business policies.
[OP] Barnyard_Rich | 54 minutes ago
The two most pro-business bill packages of the last 50 years were both negotiated and signed by separate Trump administrations, one in 2017, and one in 2025. More pro-business than anything passed by W, HW, Clinton, Obama, Biden, and yes even Reagan.
I don't think you've got a firm grip on very recent American history.
Nuckfan91 | 43 minutes ago
Tariffs are main policy of trump, it’s the only thing he really seems to value. I think you grip on what’s going on isn’t firm. You think business likes tariffs?
[OP] Barnyard_Rich | 17 minutes ago
Or, you could just learn something, son:
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/one-big-beautiful-bill-tax-us-manufacturing/
There's a reason nearly 100% of CEOs support Trump, he paid them all handsomely. Just a heads up, lying about policies that have been passed doesn't magically change those policies, son.
Edit: Ah, checked your comment history, you're very far right and pro-business. You're knowingly spreading disinformation because you know how disastrous your policies are. I get it.
Nuckfan91 | 14 minutes ago
So massive tariffs the largest in decades aren’t happening? This is great news for many companies that are paying them
[OP] Barnyard_Rich | 11 minutes ago
Son, if you could read and were willing to engage in good faith, you'd know what I posted projected over $130 billion in free money given away to corporations in just the first year of the OBBBA. Meanwhile, according to literally every measurement publicized so far, over 90% of the burden of tariffs have been passed on to American consumers.
Please tell me how, specifically, that additional $130 billion given to corporations hurts those corporations son.
Tyfereth | 5 hours ago
I miss the Democrats, sure they were bad at business, but they were not actively trying to burn business to the ground like the GOP is for every business that is not an AI company or connected to Trump
Available-Range-5341 | 4 hours ago
What does this have to do with politics though? Or did you want more massive spending on debt to prop up the economy, pretending it's growth?
8to24 | 7 hours ago
Businesses do not expand and hire more people simply because their tax rates are lower. Supply and demand isn't impacted by the inheritance tax rate, lmfao.
Financial-Desk-669 | 7 hours ago
"Businesses do not expand and hire more people simply because their tax rates are lower."
Yup. On the contrary they are more prone to expand and hire if they feel confident in the financial health of the country. The 90s boom was aided, in part, by Clinton eliminating the deficit and producing a surplus. Massive deficits and historic debt that result from useless tax cuts increase risk and reduce confidence.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 6 hours ago
Well, it is more complicated than that.
The 90s was a complex interplay of factors.
There was a significantly lowered price of oil in the mid to late 90s. Consequently, inputs requiring oil were cheaper.
Massive job growth associated with the advent of the “information economy.” Btw, that is a term I haven’t heard in decades. Takes me back.
Baby boomers were in their prime working years. This the “dependency ratio” was very favorable. Fast forward 30 years and that ratio isn’t so favorable. In 1996, it was 53.04%; in 2025 it has risen to 55%. Small, but significant.
Finally, reduced federal spending with the draw down of Cold War spending.
So, lower costs associated with a major economic input (oil, which includes energy costs as well as fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fabrics and materials. Higher labor force participation. Technological breakout (it is difficult for younger folks to understand how radical the internet changed world is compared to the before time). All that boosted the economy, which in turn boosted federal revenues.
Clinton was extremely fortunate to have been president during this period.
It is worth noting that the period was also a bubble. A bubble that burst in 2000, the peak of it all being 10 March, 2000. The bust that followed was brutal. It sucked.
Shoend | 5 hours ago
There was also no major crisis. This century had 2000, 2008, 2020. Although the first mostly affected the stock market, the second the stock and labour market, the last was brutal from the pov of inflation and definitely consolidated the idea that there is no way the US govt can repay the massive debt.
Simple_Purple_4600 | 7 hours ago
Has anyone ever actually paid an inheritance tax?
I was a reporter and our Rep Foxx kept whining about people losing their family farms because of death taxes and I asked her find me one instance so I could write about it. Crickets.
NTJ-891 | 6 hours ago
Foxx is the worst. This is completely off topic, but her behavior during Helene and intentionally leaving a family stranded because she wouldn't let them traverse her land and intact road was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. In a time while we were all helping our neighbors, she asked "What's in it for me?" and then the district fucking re-elected her.
Microplasticsharts | 6 hours ago
I remember thinking we were almost done with these people when Jesse Helms died, oh was I wrong.
NTJ-891 | 6 hours ago
Oh having grown up in Worst Carolina, and now living in North Carolina for the past two years after moving back from the west coast, I had no illusions of the personalities and disappointments I'd be surrounded by living in rural NC. I had thought that maybe Helene would wake some people up having volunteered in the Burke and McDowell rescue and supply operations, but the moment the propaganda machine started feeding total lies and nonsense to the people least equipped to think critically about it I knew that the "New South" was a myth.
The reality is that on a given day, many of the people I would otherwise consider good honest folks are moments away from one piece of confirmation bias turning them into some of the worst people I've ever seen. It's really scary for anyone who has read and internalized things like "They Thought They Were Free"
Own-Chemist2228 | 6 hours ago
Most people would be ok with inheritance tax when someone inherits a multi-million dollar business that manufactures widgets.
But change Acme Corporation to "family farm" and suddenly inheritance tax is a great injustice!
I have no problem with inheritance taxes for the very wealthy, regardless of the the type of business. A $14 million dollar farm is just another corporation.
Contemplationz | 6 hours ago
They also get a step-up in cost basis so that usually offsets a huge proportion of the taxes.
Maybe we should just end step-up in cost basis instead of having an estate tax. The rich will continually bitch about their tax burden though regardless.
Also, put a 3% annual fee on all equity lines of credit (ELOC) so that the rich can just continuously avoid paying taxes on their gains.
Also increase capital gains taxes slightly.
sizzlingthumb | 5 hours ago
The federal estate tax exemption this year is $15 million ($30 million for married couples). Large-scale family farms with over $1 million in annual gross income make up only 4% of all farms, and their median family net worth was recently $2.8 million, not even close to owing estate tax. On top of that, farms have multiple ways to avoid estate taxes if they're passing the farm on to the next generation, like using LLC's to distribute ownership and placing assets in irrevocable trusts. The claim that estate taxes are a threat to family farms just isn't credible.
papaswamp | 6 hours ago
Someone wrote an article for you. .
Levitlame | 6 hours ago
Is this article well researched sarcasm? It’s very funny if that’s the case.
“That means that in 2025, the estate of any farmer or rancher with a net worth over $13.99 million, if owned by an individual owner, or $27.98 million if owned by a married couple, must file an estate tax return within 9 months of their passing”
kojimep | 5 hours ago
You're not going to find many people that feel bad for someone that has to pay tax on inheriting >$8 million worth of land.
papaswamp | 4 hours ago
Yet people wonder why farms are disappearing or swallowed up by large corporations.
Straight_Document_89 | 6 hours ago
Better pay raises under democrats than under republicans. Growth allows for that.
I_Am_Dwight_Snoot | 5 hours ago
>Businesses do not expand and hire more people simply because their tax rates are lower.
You'd think we would have learned this when literally every economist said the TCJA was a massive policy failure.
To recap it for the uninitiated: Trump killed roughly 20% ($500 billion in just 2024 taxes) in yearly corporate taxes and we received a standard 2-3% GDP growth and very weak wage growth for the next 3 years. This was far below even the most skeptical and conservative estimates. Not to mention he ended up raising the deficit because he couldn't fund his own tax increases.
With 0 requirements or guidelines there was no reason for corporations to change anything. Corporate tax cuts could theoretically work if some type of effort was put into policing wage/job growth. For anecdotal reference, my company heavily supported the cuts, told us it would be good for the entire "company family", received the full tax cuts, and continued giving raises that barely hit COL adjustments due to inflation. They had the gall to wonder why I left lol
Flashy_Jello_9520 | 5 hours ago
They also don’t expand during a fucking recession.
yrotsihfoedisgnorw | 4 hours ago
The narrative around taxes and how businesses and people will react to them is so incredibly flawed. It defies common sense. Atlas Shrugged did a number on a few generations.
Obvious_Chapter2082 | 6 hours ago
I don’t know why you went straight to inheritance taxes. Business taxes do impact the demand for labor
OddlyFactual1512 | 7 hours ago
0.7% annualized is anemic growth. Along with an ~3% core inflation rate, this fits the definition of stagflation. Yet, I don't hear any media outlets talking about it. I guess facts don't matter anymore, just what color jersey one wears. It's pathetic that a large portion of the electorate cheers for their political party in the same way they cheer for their favorite sports team.
ballmermurland | 6 hours ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/09/fears-of-1970s-style-stagflation-arise-with-oil-spike-to-100-how-big-a-threat-is-it.html
Come on man. Just because they aren't blaring it doesn't mean they aren't talking about it.
I don't think we're in 1970s style stagflation yet. That was higher inflation and higher unemployment than what we have currently. But if this war drags on, I can definitely see us getting there.
OddlyFactual1512 | 6 hours ago
Read the first word in that headline.
FidgetyHerbalism | 5 hours ago
Are we that fucking far gone that you can't even read the entire headline in context, let alone the article itself, and have to resort to cherrypicking a word from the headline to insinuate something else?
The article is literally entirely about the threat of stagflation and provides economic analysis around it. It's discussed plenty.
handsoapdispenser | 5 hours ago
It's funny how the data is real when they make Trump look bad. But no, this is not yet stagflation. Aside from unemployment still being low, stagflation is defined by being persistent. This isn't pattern until we see it play over the course of at least a whole quarter. It's slightly possible we are beginning a stagflationary cycle but it's way too soon to declare it here.
lemonylol | 5 hours ago
I wouldn't say stagflation since the rate of inflation is increasing, and has now passed target range.
OddlyFactual1512 | 4 hours ago
You just made an argument counter to your assertion.
Available-Range-5341 | 4 hours ago
The media has literally been churning out fear porn non-stop. Do you not follow economic news?
moreesq | 7 hours ago
You have to admire the government employees who release this data. They’re putting their jobs and their agency on the line for what I hope is accurate economic data. Wait for the administration to kill the messenger. In our constant slide toward authoritarianism, inconvenient facts are merely fake news to be silenced.
akc250 | 6 hours ago
This administration is one of the worst and most corrupt ever, but I have to point out the hypocrisy of redditors on this sub. Whenever there's any positive numbers, everyone is quick to claim they're made up. But whenever there's bad numbers, everyone blindly trusts it and now your comment is praising the officials releasing the numbers.
Available-Range-5341 | 4 hours ago
100%. You realize how many trolls hang out here. They've argued basic facts in the BLS when it makes Biden look bad. Even when you include the link to the past data, they ignore it and continue hate-posting
defaultedebt | 4 hours ago
Most people straight up do not understand the processes behind data collection at the BLS or BEA, and often going so far as not understanding what basic figures like GDP, CPI even measure.
It is crazy the amount of times I've had to explain what "real" (inflation adjusted) data is, in an economics sub of all places.
RashmaDu | 3 hours ago
I mean yes, but I think this is a Goomba fallacy - it’s different people getting amplified rather than individuals being inconsistent
Electrical-Wish-519 | 6 hours ago
Well they do put their finger on the scale in a lot of these monthly and quarterly type reports. Most people don’t understand where there is insulation and non qualified trump cronies can fudge the numbers and where they can’t. The safe bet with this admin is that they’re lying about everything
FidgetyHerbalism | 5 hours ago
>Well they do put their finger on the scale in a lot of these monthly and quarterly type reports
Yeah? Why don't you name specifically which data you believe has been manipulated in this way?
>Most people don’t understand where there is insulation and non qualified trump cronies can fudge the numbers and where they can’t.
Similarly, would you like to name a non-qualified Trump crony who you think has the ability to fudge these numbers?
>The safe bet with this admin is that they’re lying about everything
Kind of bizarre that not a single BLS Commissioner of the last 15 years agrees with this, then.
OmniPhobic | 3 hours ago
Nobody is talking about the last 15 years. Trump, in the last year, has changed everything. Anyone who pushes back at all is fired. Everyone has to swear loyalty to Trump. There is no more loyalty to the constitution or to the citizens. It is all Trump. I would trust nothing that comes out of the Trump government.
FidgetyHerbalism | 2 hours ago
>Nobody is talking about the last 15 years. Trump, in the last year, has changed everything.
You've misread me. I am pointing out that every single BLS Commissioner from the last 15 years has explicitly and recently said that you can still trust the BLS.
Here, go read my other comment for yourself. Quotes and links included. And these are primarily Democrat-aligned economists, with all of them criticising Trump's firing of McEntarfer.
If the economic reporting is so untrustworthy, you've got some explaining to do as to why the four of the most qualified people on the planet to assess it all disagree with you.
offic3r_fri3ndly | 6 hours ago
ok, Econ friends, here’s something i wish I knew: does gdp growth include inflation? if gdp goes up 3% at the same time inflation runs 3%, is net growth zero?
Usual-Appearance-452 | 6 hours ago
Depends on if it's nominal GDP or real GDP. That's nominal GDP in your example. Nominal GDP is calculated using inflated pricing but real GDP uses a 'deflator factor' to try and look at the economy growth without inflation. This is the Real GDP revision in the article
offic3r_fri3ndly | 4 hours ago
cool, thanks
niemir2 | 6 hours ago
Most of the time, GDP growth rates are reported in "real" terms, that is, after accounting for inflation. This is one of those times.
offic3r_fri3ndly | 4 hours ago
gotcha, thanks
shatureg | 4 hours ago
If nominal GDP would grow by 3% but inflation also increases by 3% then the real growth rate you'd see in reports and articles would state "0% growth". Real GDP growth is always reported as all the growth past the point of inflation.
offic3r_fri3ndly | 4 hours ago
Now I know, thanks
214ObstructedReverie | 6 hours ago
The GDP growth number includes inflation, yes.
Kitchen-Copy8607 | 3 hours ago
no, it does not. This growth rate is based on real GDP figures, which are computed using constant prices, and therefore do not grow with inflation.
214ObstructedReverie | 3 hours ago
First line of the article:
>GDP rose at a seasonally and inflation-adjusted annual rate of just 0.7% in the fourth quarter, according to a Commerce Department revision Friday.
reasonably_plausible | an hour ago
You're a bit confused here about terminology. "Real" figures like real GDP or real wage growth do use constant dollar figures, but that's the reason why they include inflation.
The constant dollar figures means that they adjust the 2025 reading to account for the change in value for 2025 dollars. A nominal reading of the GDP growth from 2024 to 2025 has a reading in 2024 dollars and a reading in 2025 dollars and just computes the difference between the two. Real GDP instead normalizes the two readings into a singular constant dollar value (meaning accounting for inflation) and then computes the difference.
Fibertad | 6 hours ago
Build up your emergency fund people. No one knows when a slow down is going to happen. We just know that they happen and you want to be ready when it does.
ISuperNovaI | 7 hours ago
@chat is this good? Are we “so fucking back?” Is this Winning? Is this what a Golden Age looks like?
Words words words this sub has the dumbest rules words words words words wooooooooooooords
gmb92 | 5 hours ago
Take those popular Atlanta Fed projections with a grain of salt. They had it at 5.4% a month into the year, later revising it down to 3.0%. Plenty using those early projections to claim the economy was great.
"January 26, 2026 The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the fourth quarter of 2025 is 5.4 percent on January 26"
https://www.atlantafed.org/research-and-data/data/gdpnow/current-and-past-gdpnow-commentaries
Scrandon | 2 hours ago
Sheesh - they really could not have been farther off. Unless actual gdp was negative…
Caveat_Venditor_ | 2 hours ago
Just wait until the fed removes seven trillion from their balance, raises rates exponentially to get the required deflation to get to a 2% average, then they have to print nine trillion and short everything the touched over the last fifteen years then we have to pay back 40 trillion in debt. Fair and free market capitalism and all. The market gets below zero pretty quick.
cheweychewchew | 5 hours ago
So these numbers initially come out, look way ridiculous and people on Reddit say so.
Then Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies start berating everybody on Reddit as a bunch of mouth breathing basement dwellers for suggesting they're bullshit. "They can't be fixed! You're doing a disservice spreading lies....yadda yadda"
Then months later, extreme revisions come down that show we were right.
Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies should probably STFU about how stupid the rest of us are and acknowlege the cheap parlor trick Trump is pulling with the BLS. It's obvious they're initially putting out crap so he can take credit for the "greatest economy ever", then revising them to cover their ass.
Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies once again telling me how stupid we all are in 5.....4......
FidgetyHerbalism | 5 hours ago
>Then months later, extreme revisions come down that show we were right.
This was quite literally Trump's logic for firing McEntarfer; he accused the Biden admin of rigging good jobs numbers at first then later revising them down by large margins.
It wasn't sound logic when Trump used it, and it's not sound now.
>Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies should probably STFU about how stupid the rest of us are and acknowlege the cheap parlor trick Trump is pulling with the BLS.
This is a BEA report, not BLS...
>Mr. Trained Economist and his "very intelligent" buddies once again telling me how stupid we all are in 5.....4......
I don't think I've ever seen someone take quite so much pride on not being qualified on a technical subject, but you do you.
Scrandon | 2 hours ago
Trump is a projectionist and compulsive liar. His false claims have no bearing on the validity of anybody else’s claims.
findingmike | 5 hours ago
Hard to find a chart, but this appears to be the largest single revision ever in US quarterly GDP. This doesn't reinforce the claim that the numbers aren't being manipulated.
Available-Range-5341 | 4 hours ago
haha. You can easily google bigger ones under Obama for example:
but the biggest ones were probably in 2008
FaceMaulingChimp | 3 hours ago
Q4 2008 estimate was under Bush
Available-Range-5341 | 3 hours ago
OK? AND? I knew the "make everything political' crowd would troll, so I gave two horrible revisions under Obama.
FaceMaulingChimp | 2 hours ago
haha. Revisions above 1% are considered large with 0.4%-0.5% being typical. The only huge revision you had was from the Bush admin which makes it look like you accidentally agreed with the other guy’s suspicions .
Available-Range-5341 | 2 hours ago
Wow you really can't admit you lost this one. I cherry picked one because you can ask google AI yourself and see the full list. You are so d--- that you made me look up more and there are more bad revisions under Obama such as
So you're TDS dug you a hole. You are complaining about TRump revisions now admit they are small, with that fake threshold you set
FaceMaulingChimp | an hour ago
I’m not the OP -my comments to you were neutral . Sorry if pointing out you made a mistake hurt your feelings. You could reply to the original guy with a list of larger revision by magnitude or percentage.
Available-Range-5341 | an hour ago
what feelings were hurt? I don't get that part. You keep trying to build an anti_Trump case but fail miserably. No we can't fake the numbers to fit a weird agenda on an ECONOMICS sub
DimMak1 | 6 hours ago
And we know these numbers are always rigged to appear better than they are so my guess is the growth was actually negative and inflation is around 8-9% or so
OrangeJr36 | 6 hours ago
As of yet the White House has no sway over economic reporting, despite the likelihood that they would very much want to.
DimMak1 | 3 hours ago
There is no actual evidence of this. It’s just a policy that we trust is enforced, but have zero proof that it is enforced.
ReallyTeddyRoosevelt | 6 hours ago
The numbers are real. You obviously have no clue just how transparent the calculations are. Its not like the White House makes up a number and tells people what to report.
Own-Chemist2228 | 6 hours ago
I also think that they are real, for now. But it is troubling that the person at the top and most of the people at the next level or two below them would have no issue whatsoever with publishing completely fake numbers.
The middle managers and line employees in the federal government still have integrity, but the people at the top are doing everything they can to erode that.
ReallyTeddyRoosevelt | 6 hours ago
Absolutely. He would if he could, I'm not arguing that.
Available-Range-5341 | 4 hours ago
Were you this vocal when the BLS was off every single month by 30-60%?
Distinct-Response907 | 6 hours ago
If that were true then the revision would be small relative to the original report, which also used a transparent process. The last several administrations have been cooking the numbers to fit their agenda. 10+ year old data for research purposes is probably reasonably accurate, but anything closer than that is for headlines only.
OrangeJr36 | 6 hours ago
Utter nonsense, literally every analyst and anyone who works with economic data from private to public and from national to international businesses would notice if there was anything resembling a concerted effort to doctor economic reports.
FidgetyHerbalism | 5 hours ago
>If that were true then the revision would be small relative to the original report
It's literally the opposite.
Some level of revision is exactly what you'd expect from a staggered estimate process like this where you issue preliminary estimates with much less data, whereas you wouldn't expect a bureau rigging the figures to draw attention to themselves or make themselves look bad by revising the numbers down.
rPoliticsModsBlowMe | 6 hours ago
Lol
DimMak1 | 3 hours ago
The numbers are as transparent as the pre-war intel that said there was WMD in Iraq
Transparent doesn’t mean they aren’t manipulated. For example, removing gas from the basket of items used to calculation inflation would artificially lower the number. These are the types of con games routinely played by the failed ruling class.
The macroeconomic numbers are ALWAYS rigged to be better than they actually are and that’s just the way it is
oldbutfeisty | 6 hours ago
I remain amazed that anyone believes these figures. The analysts produce numbers based on poor data, these numbers are very likely adjusted to make them seem believable. Pretty sure the liars in charge are continuing to lie. They can't even think of producing accurate reports now.
FidgetyHerbalism | 5 hours ago
>I remain amazed that anyone believes these figures.
That's because you lack any kind of economic qualification, while the experts who actually read the reports and work with these agencies all understand why the reports are good quality and virtually impossible to manipulate.
Wellontheotherhand1 | 5 hours ago
Ah yes, nothing like opening Reddit to read the morning economic news and seeing a troll with a blocked post history claim that anyone who questions the Trump government line is a fool
Just my daily reminder of how absolutely unserious this site is
FidgetyHerbalism | 5 hours ago
>and seeing a troll with a blocked post history claim that anyone who questions the Trump government line is a fool
Hey, don't take my word for it!
Why don't you take the word of every BLS Commissioner for the last ~15 years, instead? (3 of which were Democrat admin appointees)
Here's Will Wiatrowski, the current Acting Commissioner of the BLS. He got the job automatically by virtue of being Deputy Commissioner since 2015 under Obama:
>Equally wrong, he added, are concerns that since McEntarfer’s firing, the Trump administration itself has been falsifying statistics. “If anyone were cooking the books, I would be the first person to be shouting that there was a problem,” Wiatrowski said. “And many, many of my colleagues would follow me and make public statements.”
Here's Erika McEntarfer, the previous Commissioner of the BLS (and who was fired by Trump):
>Person who was fired here - you should still trust BLS data. The agency is being run by the same dedicated career staff who were running it while I was awaiting confirmation from the Senate. And the staff have made it clear that they are blowing a loud whistle if there is interference.
And here's a co-signed statement from both Will Beach and Erica Groshen, the two previous BLS Commissioners before McEntarfer. We're now going back to 2013:
>As Co-Chairs of the Friends of BLS, we have full confidence in the expertise and integrity of the staff and leaders of the BLS. Their performance during duress, short staffing, and inadequate resources has been exemplary. Yet they are human. Concerns about political manipulation at BLS are unfounded. We are watching carefully and promise to alert users to any credible evidence of manipulation.
I also pointed out in another response that Paul Krugman also recently did an interview explicitly saying the books-cooking conspiracy theories (and yes, he uses that term himself) are wrong.
Sorry for being 'unserious'. Which reputable economists do you follow that have alleged the data is manipulated? Do you have better citations? You're on an economics sub, so you'll need to cite some evidence.
Wellontheotherhand1 | 5 hours ago
Sorry bud, but you, like all other trolls who block their post history have nothing meaningful to offer to any conversation, and aren't worth my time in the slightest, other than to mock
Your sole purpose here is to cause dissent among people who are actually here in good faith, the fact that you had those links ready to go within a single minute certainly does not help your cause at all and I have zero interest in wasting my time on a conservative troll today. I don't recommend anyone else does either
defaultedebt | 4 hours ago
This just reads as: "I'm not interested in reading the opinions of experts, and would rather rely on my own personal intuition."
Talk about bad faith lmao
Wellontheotherhand1 | 3 hours ago
You also have a blocked post history, and as such, have nothing interesting to offer me whatsoever, so that's pretty funny
FidgetyHerbalism | 5 hours ago
>Sorry bud, but you, like all other trolls who block their post history have nothing meaningful to offer to any conversation, and aren't worth my time in the slightest, other than to mock
I'm the one who just provided directly relevant quotes from reputable economic experts to back up my views, while you're the one doing nothing more than hurling insults and personal attacks.
What's the saying? Every accusation is a confession, hmm?
It's fine if you don't want to talk. I didn't ask you to respond to me, and you don't have to. But those are the opinions of the last 4 BLS Commissioners (plus Krugman!) whether you like it or not.
Wellontheotherhand1 | 4 hours ago
The most effective propaganda and lies always contain nuggets of truth. The fact that you are posting some quotes from economists does not in any way address the fact that you are here solely to troll people, and you block your post history to avoid being held to account for the things that you've said in the past, so as to more effectively advance your goal without people being able to spot it easily
A waste of everybody's time, and not somebody who is here in good faith, no matter what you say
FidgetyHerbalism | 4 hours ago
>The most effective propaganda and lies always contain nuggets of truth. The fact that you are posting some quotes from economists...
Nuggets of truth, huh?
That's some impressive mental gymnastics to rationalise away the opinion of the most qualified economic experts on earth to assess this matter, directly stating that we can still trust the economic data and that concerns about political manipulation are unfounded.
Is the "nugget" of truth here that reputable economists trust the data, then? Seems like a pretty fatal concession for you to make if your position is that the data can't be trusted.
>...does not in any way address the fact that you are here solely to troll people, and you block your post history to avoid being held to account for the things that you've said in the past, so as to more effectively advance your goal without people being able to spot it easily
Again, literally all you've done is post personal attacks against me, while I've directly cited relevant expert opinion.
(Indeed, 4 of the 5 cited economists are Dem-aligned, particularly Krugman; go read his Substack. It's not like I'm posting analysis from a conservative think tank or something, despite your accusation that I must be a conservative.)
You've had plenty of opportunity now to provide contrary evidence or expert opinion, yet all that you have chosen to do is hurl insults. Perhaps it's time for you to do some introspection about whether you've any right to cast stones.
But since you believe I'm a waste of your time, I'll do you the favour and just block you. You're welcome to go read / watch the interviews I linked. Ciao!
oldbutfeisty | 5 hours ago
Paul Krugman isn't so confident. You know, the American award winning economist. No need to be rude, it exposes your insecurity.
defaultedebt | 4 hours ago
That's good, you've managed to name one economist. Care to name others? I can name one who believes directly the opposite (and who has direct experience with the BLS): Erica Groshen. In fact, Krugman and Groshen had a discussion about just this issue, here's part of it (unable to provide source due to automod - its Krugman's blog):
>Krugman: I really feel bad asking a former BLS commissioner, “what do we do if we can no longer trust the BLS?” But, what would be the things to do? And how would we know?
>Groshen: Think about the norms of these surveys and this exercise that the agency goes through every month to produce these things. It's really highly automated. So all of the thought and the judgment has gone into designing the programs and the processes for getting those numbers out the door in trustworthy form. That's the real genius of the process, if you wanted to muck with them, you're going to have to throw a wrench into that process, and that would be visible. Things would come out late, they wouldn't add up. They would have to change the tables, and just changing the tables to add or subtract a line can take two or three months at the BLS because they have to make sure that everything still comes out right and looks right. When the numbers come in, there's a certain amount of checking and then suddenly, they're producing hundreds of tables.
>Krugman: We'd probably be hearing from whistleblowers as well.
>Groshen: That's the other part. There'd be resistance from the staff. These are the most dedicated, modest data nerds on the face of the earth, right? They choose to do this because they know it's important and they really care about it. That culture is really strong at BLS. You would get leaks, resignations, whistleblowers, refusal to implement these changes.
So they agree, while it's not good to have attacks on statistical agencies, the data remains reliable. They both agree that many of the issues with reliability come down to funding over the last 1-2 decades, rather than any particular recent event.
I_Am_Dwight_Snoot | 5 hours ago
I believe these numbers are accurate but are heavily inflated by all the AI related nonsense going on to mean much to the average person. Too many companies shoveling billions back and forth which makes the numbers hard to track throughly. Data centers are also extremely expensive which helps GDP growth. Almost every economic outlook has attributed economic growth to AI and it is very clear it is the only thing making us look like we are growing.
Without AI related growth we are probably at -2% or -3% roughy.
rocketblue11 | 3 hours ago
I also don't trust the stat of .7% growth...just enough to avoid the first of two consecutive quarters of what would fit the textbook definition of a recession.