Trump Economy Exceeds 2017 Consensus GDP Forecasts by 36%

Share the wealth brother

i'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to show. aren't both bars projections?

quote:

---

That was not consensus for this year or next, especially once the deficit-financed tax cuts and larger budget passed.

---

You missed the news?



. . . . Yes it was a set up

quote:

---

argued taxes would not change it

---

Yea, only the ignorant fringe left was arguing this. That wasn’t anything close to the consensus. Virtually everyone understands that tax cuts will lead to a short run boost in preformance. But that dissipates over the long run as prices adjust.

The policy more likely to have a permanent effect will be the regulation pullbacks. That’s where we should focus attention.

quote:

---

Yes it was a set up

---

Huh? That guy's analysis is shite. He doesn't even have CBO's estimate for TCJA correct, and he weirdly pulls certain years out of the full ten-year window they even use. His graphs are something straight out of a "things to not do when visualizing data" guide.

quote:

---

Trump Economy Exceeds 2017 Consensus GDP Forecasts by 36%

---

Breaking News from CNN: Multiple unnamed sources have confirmed that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for being too productive as a government employee.

quote:

---

once the deficit-financed tax cuts and larger budget passed.

---

you're such a fricking retard

Well a stronger economy is a good thing; however, considering the first offical estimates, with are off by an average of +/- 0.4%, the BEA recently changed their model, and this done under the policy conditions well before tax cut policy proposal details were even known, let alone actually passed and implemented, this isn’t some inexcusable projection error.

So whoever argued this

quote:

---

& argued taxes would not change it.

---

probably knows very little about economics, but this is irrelevant to a projection that didn’t include an future policy change that was an unknown at the time.

quote:

---

So he charts 3 numbers:
(1) Pre-tax cut forecast - $13.237 T
(2) Post-tax cut forecast - $12.92 T
(3) Actual Revenues - $13.314 T

---

I’m not sure how accurate the predictions are, but the effective corporate rate was actually higher in 2003-2007 (recession caused drop in 2008) and corporate tax receipts increased by about 20% YOY compared to about 5% from all other sources.

Conversely Heritage Foundation predicted the 2001 tax cuts would:

quote:

---

Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.

---

quote:

---

The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.

---

quote:

---

The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax

---

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

Of course it’s argument was the same as it is today that dynamic models are superior:

quote:

---

The reason static analysis is inaccurate is that it does not account for changes in gross domestic product (GDP), interest rates, employment, hours worked, personal income, savings, and inflation that result from a reduction in tax rates. Therefore, static estimates provide a very limited analysis of

---

But the irony is that the static and dynamic models are also pretty much treating everything else as static, and neither can account for things like September 11th or an extreme economic crash; however, given that dynamic models rely on assumptions, they can also use statistically and empirically justifiable assumptions BUT always conveniently fall on the side of one’s bias (like climate predictions). Those can be problematic enough (compounding error), as seen in Heritage analysis, who at least does well-respected and credible work.

But it gets much worse when the dishonest political machine gets involved and they add assumptions are added with no basis, to the extreme, and then the models become just nonsense, if not outright made up.