• I don’t think anyone here is claiming Biden is attempting to hurt the economy? I certainly haven’t seen that.

    But he is also not some kind of economic saviour, and most of the changes to the economy are not under his control anyways.

    But you’re the one who is trying to claim 1) the economy is good, 2) Biden is to thank.

    • Dude if you have a disagreement with the article, let’s have it. You tried to disagree with it in economic terms and it seems to me like you got tripped up on basic understanding of inflation-adjusted dollars versus non-inflation-adjusted dollars, which is why you’re recasting the whole thing in emotional terms like “not some kind of economic saviour,” but this new framing doesn’t leave a lot to actually discuss. It just takes it into the realm of bickering and fact free opinion judgements.

      The majority of people in the country believe that Trump is better on the economy than Biden, even though Trump is a fuckin trade war starting PPP fraud factory closing disaster. The idea that Biden is hurting the economy is not just un-heard-of, it is a majority view, which makes worthwhile a factual discussion of whether or not it is true.

      The last article I posted before this morning that dealt with Biden in any capacity was almost a month ago. The thing about me posting article after article you are literally just making up. Comments, I post a lot of.

      The article is a little bit explicitly “rah-rah Biden,” I’ll grant you that. On the other hand, if it’s true, then that’s legit, and I haven’t really seen anything to illustrate that it might not be true other than a pretty large amount of obfuscation in the comments arguing other points that have more convenient answers (like “are low income workers doing okay yet” which they are not).

      • My disagreement with the post’s article is that it is conflating the stock market with the economy, and the financial news sector is pushing this narrative very hard, or even saying it openly.

        My issues with the article you linked about wages, in the comments, is that you’re omissively citing bits and pieces to different people in order to support the idea that the economy is doing well, as the post article claims, when the post article is really about the stock market, not wages or living standards.

        If the wage growth at the bottom 10th percentile doesn’t mean they’re not fucked, why would you even cite it?

        •  mozz   ( @mozz@mbin.grits.dev ) OP
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          Stock market

          Who the fuck said anything about the stock market

          The article talks about “growth” which is presumably GDP, which is a bullshit metric absolutely, but the overall context is:

          The growth rate is high, the unemployment rate is at historic lows, household wealth is surging, and wages are rising faster than costs, especially for the working class. There are many ways to define a good economy. America is in tremendous shape according to just about any of them.

          The stock market is based on total crap and can swing up or down by like tens of percents on a whim for literally no reason at all. The only reason stock market even got mentioned tangentially was because Trump said something about the stock market, and they mentioned that at the end of the article.

          IDK why I’ve spent so much time on this. Honestly man it seems like you’re literally just saying anything, casting about for some thing you can poo poo or disagree with that has nothing to do with what I or the article are saying.

          • The bottom 10th percentile covers people making less than $22,880, according to BLS.

            That firmly excludes the median mode of American households, by wages. The vast majority of Americans were not helped by that number. Is it good that it happened? Yeah, absolutely. It wasn’t Biden though. And it isn’t most Americans. And it isn’t the economy as a whole.