Slashdot Mirror
Canada Has Pulled Off a Brain Heist (axios.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Seoul-born Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, a professor at Brown University known for her work on fake news, is moving to Canada. So is Alan Aspuru-Guzik, a Harvard chemistry professor working on quantum computing and artificial intelligence. They are among 24 top academic minds around the world wooed to Canada by an aggressive recruitment effort offering ultra-attractive sinecures, seven-year funding arrangements -- and, Chun and Aspuru-Guzik said in separate interviews with Axios, a different political environment from the U.S. The "Canada 150 Research Chairs Program" is spending $117 million on seven-year grants of either $350,000 a year or $1 million a year. It's part of a campaign by numerous countries to attract scholars unhappy with Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and other political trends, sweetened with unusually generous research conditions.
iZombie or The Walking Dead brain heist?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Indeed, who could have predicted there would be a worse president than Bush Jr?
Canada is always there when the USA needs them most:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
I know this place has been going downhill for awhile but this is an especially shitty submission even by msmash standards. A handful of academics get a boatload of money to move to canada is proof of a net braindrain in canada's direction and somehow this extends to proof that this is all trump's fault based upon one random comment?
Ireland is attractive because of the culture and language.
The Netherlands is attractive because the working language is English and they have a 30% rule, where for the first 8 years you get the first 30% of your income completely outside the tax system. Also, the Netherlands is very progressive.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And like Canada they are way too fucking cold!!
More money spent on science is always a good thing, and discoveries made in any country help us all.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Indeed, who could have predicted there would be a worse president than Bush Jr?
Stupid is as stupid does.
Trump says stupid things.
Dubya DID stupid things.
I think the latter is worse.
Under Trump, the economy is booming.
Under Dubya, we squandered trillions on stupid counter-productive wars, and the economy imploded.
Trump has plenty of potential to be a terrible president, but objectively he is doing okay so far.
You forgot the time he called someone a mean name on twitter.
We can look forward to many, many wonderful academic paper. For example there's the sex life of castrated transexaul protofeminist mental cases. And how about intersectional anarco-feminism of color? How about the emotional stability of carrots and parsnips, their intersectionality with gender veganism. Thank God for Canada!
Given this informed contribution, maybe it's a win-win-situation. Canada acquires a heap of top academics to improve research and development, and to build a better, fairer, more able society, and the US loses an equal number of inconvenient Cassandras and Laocoöns who only speak inconvenient truths that nobody wants to hear. Ignorance is bliss indeed. At least until the Danaans come out of the gift horse....
Stephan
Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end. I wouldn't be so quick to laud Trump's excuses for economic policy...
Some of us like not referencing our driver's licenses to remember which gender we are.
Oooh, nice by-the-numbers fake news posting. Some kids pose with baseball bats for a cool picture with firm tongue-in-cheek ironic undercurrents, and suddenly you have leftists 'patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis"'.
The best you can say about Trump's economic policies is that he hasn't tanked the economy yet, but is working hard to get there. A trade war with China is only going to hurt both sides, as are the steel tariffs with the rest of the world.
He seems to have assumed that it would be like when it was running a business, with lots of people kissing his ass and eager to do deals. But countries aren't like that, they will resist his shitty deals as much as possible. Maybe the UK will end up with one, due to being weak and desperate post-Brexit, but the other big markets like the EU, Japan and China won't.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hire a malcontent, get a malcontent.
E Proelio Veritas.
Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him.
If he is getting good results, then maybe you should view his incompetence as a positive attribute.
Any president has a year of overlap with the previous one with respect to economics. Trump was elected in November, generally wouldn't pass a budget until about March, and then you have 2-3 quarters before those policies are enacted and the economy feels those policies in earnest. Trump dragged his feet with respect to his first budget, so that shifts the curve. When the economy finally caught up to Trump's big mouth, you not only saw a decline in the market but chaotic fluctuations not seen since the global economic crisis of 2008 and a short hiccup in late 2016/early-2016.
Dubya was able to relish in Clinton's strong economic policies, and Obama kicked off his term facing the aftermath of Dubya's poor economic policies. Trump exploited Obama's economic policies to a ridiculous level to the point of actually trying to take credit for the booming economy during his first year, yet with the Dow down more than 2000 points since Janauary, alone, where's President Shitgibbon to take credit for *that*?
Trump is going to run the country like any of his businesses, which is to say, drive it directly into the ground. We're talking about a man who whent bankrupt selling wine, steak and gambling to the American people. Nothing about that suggests he's a saavy businessman, let alone a capable politician.
Trade war? Possible Nuclear War?
Those aren't good results.
Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him.
If he is getting good results, then maybe you should view his incompetence as a positive attribute.
You can't rely on Trump's incompetence, not everyone working for him is also an idiot.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Now that US colleges are rolling in an unprecedented flood of money, why aren't they using more of it to make joining the faculty a better deal?
The pattern goes even further back. It conclusively disproves the myth that progressive governments would somehow be worse for the economy than conservative ones; in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction (once you factor in the time it takes before you see the results).
The Dow actually went down during Dubya's 8 years, which is unheard of. He also got the US into a big expensive war for no good reason so that's a tough act to follow for sure. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine future historians praising Trump for ignoring those pesky climate alarmists.
That's not surprising, since he became president in full subprime mortgage crisis, and long term trends point to a permanent slowdown in economic growth in the developed world.
FTFY.
Also, how backward do you have to be to think that coal is still a pillar of the economy? You (and Trump) are stuck in the 1800s, and while you can stand on the brakes of your own country's progress all you want, it won't stop the rest of the world from getting ahead of you. Even less so if you're squandering all your international political capital.
Wrong, there was no surplus, it was all Washington doublespeak. There are two parts to the national debt - public debt and intragovernmental holdings. During the Clinton years the public debt part was paid down by borrowing money in the intragovernmental holdings mostly from Social Security. So the debt was not paid down, excess Social Security funds that by law are required to be re-invested into securities became additional intragovernmental debt. During the Clinton years the national debt total continued to rise:
FY1993 $4.411488 trillion debt
FY1994 $4.692749 trillion debt, increase of $281.26 billion
FY1995 $4.973982 trillion debt, increase of $281.23 billion
FY1996 $5.224810 trillion debt, increase of $250.83 billion
FY1997 $5.413146 trillion debt, increase of $188.34 billion
FY1998 $5.526193 trillion debt, increase of $113.05 billion
FY1999 $5.656270 trillion debt, increase of $130.08 billion
FY2000 $5.674178 trillion debt, increase of $17.91 billion
FY2001 $5.807463 trillion debt, increase of $133.29 billion
FY2001 was Clinton's last budget submitted before Bush took office.
Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end.
Definitively untrue: http://www.taintedalpha.com/wp...
Trump's done wonders for the stock markets.
The economy is doing well coincidentally. It takes years for the economy as a whole to react to changes, so Tump's economy is floating on Obama's legacy.
But the stock market is a bellwether. Trump's ridiculous trade war with China is eventually going to tank the economy.
I would never leave Canada to live in the US. And given how shitty our weather is, that speaks volumes...
Obama really does deserve credit for powering the US economy out of the financial crisis. The UK went the opposite way and lost a decade, just the same as Japan did in the 90s. Frustrating as bail-outs are, the alternative is worse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They got Jordan Peterson too, from Harvard, though he's from Canada and he went there 20 years ago.
Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end. I wouldn't be so quick to laud Trump's excuses for economic policy...
Also, considering how badly the USD is doing, I wouldn't be so quick to say the US economy is doing well at all.
The US dollar is dropping almost as fast as the GB Pound. USD/GBP is almost back to pre-brexit levels where as the GBP vs other major currencies is down at least 20%.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It's the great brain robbery?
In the 80's, several of my best Physics and CS professors were ex-Americans who had fled the draft for the Vietname war in the 60's.
Canada was all the better for it.
However, in the interest of fairness, it should be noted that there's a constant brain drain (rather slower of late) from Canada to the US of talented individuals seeking the greater opportunities that a country as large as the US can offer. This is more of a small flow of academics in the other direction rather than a huge reversal in the regular brain drain to the US.
Dubya was a well-meaning but simple man who was lead astray by some truly evil men (Rumsfeld & Cheney). Trump is evil and stupid but most of all egocentric, which has thus far mostly prevented him from getting the assistance he needs to accomplish very much.
We're only 17 months into the Trump era. At this point in Dubya's reign he hadn't even invaded Iraq yet. Spanky's trade war with China is already slowing the economy. If we make it to 2020 (or God forbid 2024) without invading both Iran and North Korea, THEN I'll agree that he's a better president than Dubya (though still not a better person).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
When we get our army of AI soldiers, we'll remember who our friends were. (and weren't)
- Love Canada
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
That's largely a correction from the boom years that Clinton accidentally stumbled into due to the dot-com boom. Sometimes, the market doesn't give a shit who's president. The systemic forces of the 90s markets were laid out in earlier years, and had nothing to do with Clinton. The subsequent market collapse was expected and had little to do with Bush (except the expensive wars; it wasn't economic policy).
I just checked the currency, the only one it's losing ground on is the British Pound, and that's not really so much the Dollar dropping but the Pound recovering. It's currently $1.40 to the pound, before brexit it was $1.60. Against the Euro it's $1.22, which is a pretty historical norm. I'm curious as to which major currency it's doing poorly against? And the follow up to that is, is it possible that currency is just doing well? Because against at least two major currencies it's doing pretty typically.
But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?
If you are a true believer in democracy then you should have a lot of trouble with the Brexit vote. Several million British citizens living outside the UK, many inside the rest of the EU, were denied the right to vote in the referendum. It is extremely likely that many of them would have voted to remain, especially those in the EU!
There is no doubt that this exclusion was legal. But you cannot exclude several million of your adult citizens from voting on an issue which directly affects them and then pretend that the result is democratic. As someone who has lived in Europe working at the CERN particle physics lab I always felt of myself as an EU citizen first and foremost and this is now being stripped away from me without my having any vote.
Fortunately, I had already moved to Canada before it was fashionable and I have now done my own personal Brexit and am a proud, new Canadian citizen. However, it is still sad to see the country you grew up in having names that are becoming increasingly ironic: "Great" Britain and the "United" Kingdom.
All leftist politicians have very forward-thinking 5 and 10 year plans, conveniently past the next election. They are like the guy daily wearing a sign that the world will end tomorrow...always tomorrow.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I've heard of brain heists before. The one that sticks in my mind is the one that resulted in the acquisition of Abby Normal's brain.
The worst thing Trump could do is put the economy into a Clinton-like bubble. A bubble economy looks good for a few years (e.g. the mid-90's), but there is always a long and painful crash afterward. It took the world roughly fifteen years to recover from the crashes following the twin bubbles Clinton started (stock market and real estate).
Tariffs are just a thinly disguised tax increase designed to prevent the economy from getting overheated.
Any president has a year of overlap with the previous one with respect to economics. Trump was elected in November, generally wouldn't pass a budget until about March, and then you have 2-3 quarters before those policies are enacted and the economy feels those policies in earnest. Trump dragged his feet with respect to his first budget, so that shifts the curve. When the economy finally caught up to Trump's big mouth, you not only saw a decline in the market but chaotic fluctuations not seen since the global economic crisis of 2008 and a short hiccup in late 2016/early-2016.
You say that but imagine that in 2008 the economy held on to late November, or even February of '09.
How many people would still lay the blame for the meltdown on the Bush-era policies in that case?
I stole this Sig
A government should not be squandering treasure to hold up dying companies and technology. It should be using that treasure (your tax dollars) to prepare. Things like retraining workers to different industries, infrastructure improvements for towns affected to attract other business, etc. Not doing that means that the government is really only looking out for a few wallets now, not you or your family in the future.
Silence is a state of mime.
Yay! A truimph validating hatred of Trump by bribing scientists with taxpayer dollars for $350k to $1M a year, minimum 7 years!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Indeed, who could have predicted there would be a worse president than Bush Jr?
Stupid is as stupid does.
Trump says stupid things. Dubya DID stupid things. I think the latter is worse.
Under Trump, the economy is booming. Under Dubya, we squandered trillions on stupid counter-productive wars, and the economy imploded.
Trump has plenty of potential to be a terrible president, but objectively he is doing okay so far.
Mmm, let's see how his trade war with Chine works out.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
At least he's not trying to provoke a war with Russia like the other candidate.
Two words that rarely appear in close proximity.
Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him.
If he is getting good results, then maybe you should view his incompetence as a positive attribute.
Trump's incompetence is a positive attribute. But that's not really a good thing to say about the President of the United States.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
He'd be kicking ass except for his policies re: the FCC, air quality, water quality and torture. And those Satanic, black-eyed minions, Sessions and Pence... but Trump's policies re: trade and immigration? Yeah, I'm with you.
That's not surprising, since I'm sure you remember Obama's statements about "remaking the US economy" and his "war on coal".
What, you think the economy is being held back because we're not mining enough coal? The 19th century called, they want their energy source back.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The best you can say about Trump's economic policies is that he hasn't tanked the economy yet, but is working hard to get there. A trade war with China is only going to hurt both sides, as are the steel tariffs with the rest of the world.
Do you know what China did to the photovoltaic market? They directly backed all of their solar panel-producing companies so that they could sell their products below cost, which ended up bankrupting pretty much every American photovoltaic company, and once they had no competitors the Chinese government stopped pumping cash into their companies and the prices were raised. They also do this with rare earth metals. Tariffs are exactly what are needed to prevent these sorts of things from happening and protecting local competitors.
Sanders is a wild card. Certainly with a supportive Congress, the economy would be radically different under Sanders. Shifted. Perhaps better, perhaps worse. Clinton would have continued existing policies and been able to provide a sense of stability. The glacially slow Obama recovery would have continued. We would have likely seen the stock market grow more sensibly. Once we see the full effect of the impending Trump correction, we'll know if the Trump boom was just a precursor to a Trump bust, or if it was the beginning of solid growth.
And I left out the FCC...
Brainfart; apparently I did not... :/
Funny how dubya didn't get that reaction.
People were talking about moving to Canada under W too. I'm not sure how many actually followed through on it. The thing is, most of us thought W would go down as the worst President in modern history. But then the GOP said, "Hold my beer".
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You're extrapolating from an extremely small window of data. The newly arrived market volatility suggests we may have just seen an accumulation and burst of pent-up sell pressure, which could easily send the markets down far enough to wipe out the Trump boom.
Canada is economist.
When the Euro was first introduced, 1 US$ was worth more than 1 EUR. Now it is consistently the other way around.
By letting the same banks that crashed the economy in the first place to steal millions of homes through fraudclosure? Banks only grew larger and stayed over-leveraged under his watch. Like Obama's decision not to prosecute torturers leading directly to Gina "I tortured some foks" Haspel being nominated to head the CIA, his decision not to prosecute a single bank or banker will lead directly to another economic crisis. And he printed trillions of dollars to loan to banks at 0% interest, instead of helping people that actually work for a living.
Thanks Obama!
The stock market was up due to the prospects of having a non-socialist president, and the repatriation of foreign earnings. Do you really think the economy would have improved under Clinton or Sanders?
Of course it would have. History has shown quite clearly that the economy does better under Democratic administrations.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#27a9d68a6786
https://www.aeaweb.org/research/why-does-the-economy-do-better-democrats-white-house
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
All presidents since Nixon have been further to the right than he was, and Nixon of course was a right winger. Just how far back are you going here?
Brexit was on of the few victories of the democracy vs the powers who control everything (elections included). Now, they are takin revenge at any cost, any moment any way, This is just another maneouver to hit britain for chosing against New World Order.
Americans, I'd be worried, even if not voted for Trump, seeing how media, social networks and corporations are trying to reverse the election outcome. Democracy is fine, as long as you vote for THEIR candidate, Even if his (or her in this case) plan is to destroy the society.
Try reading past "and".
That graph shows positive q-o-q change beginning Q3 2009, only 2 quarters after Obama took office. So you are correct, it did not "only started improving somewhere near the end" of the Obama years.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
He seems to have assumed that it would be like when it was running a business, with lots of people kissing his ass and eager to do deals.
...and if he fucks up and goes bankrupt, that he can just dust it off and go start again.
Maybe you should spend some time looking back at the last ten years of bad science - faked studies, meta-studies, multi-variate models with dancing elephants, biases cooked into the methodology, pal-review, suing other researchers because they published something that dared to disagree and withholding/losing data.
Just like every other human endeavor, there are good and bad, capable and incompetent, sane and psychotic people involved. Please don't build a church around science.
All leftist politicians have very forward-thinking 5 and 10 year plans, conveniently past the next election. They are like the guy daily wearing a sign that the world will end tomorrow...always tomorrow.
Well, won't that be great, that also happens to be the same day the climate apocalypse begins.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
A) "Dubya" did not have the power to spend money that was not approved by Congress.
B) Clinton only had a "surplus" through accounting manipulation of moving the Social Security funds into the general funds
C) Clinton had the benefit of being President during and internet bubble and the Year 2000 bug scare, where huge amounts of economic activity were propelled by early replacement of capital investments that led to a lull in replacements directly after 1999...you know, when "Dubya" took over.
But, you go ahead and keep living with your kindergarten view of world history.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Recall that despite Clinton's scandals with Monica, he left the country with a surplus rather than a deficit
Clinton's great achievement was to acquiesce to a Republican leadership in Congress which practiced spending restraint.
Of course, the majority of Republican congress people today are gutless, lying spendweasels, but for a brief moment in modern times they were not.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
That word...I do not think it means what you think it means.
Providing stable, long-term funding so that established, high-profile researchers can bring their projects and research programs to Canada doesn't really look like a sinecure; they're not getting paid to do nothing. The $350,000 or $1 million per year funding for these positions isn't handed over as a lavish salary; it's support to allow researchers to hire staff, buy equipment, and maintain their labs. It's a fairly long-term arrangement as these things go - the NIH's R01 grants contemplate up to 5 years, and many sources of money are 3 or fewer years, or one-offs - but it's not ludicrous.
~Idarubicin
So unhappy they need a $350k-$1 million per year incentive to move.
Agreed. How do I put this succinctly? America has gone too far down the road of "instant gratification" and a LOT of people don't understand that shit doesn't happen instantly. Like the entire US economy. Sure, the stock markets "react" to policy changes, but the "economy" is a machine and it takes a long time to feel the effects of changes to the policies that drive it.
So the dumbasses that seem to make up the majority of the population, fed on decades of TV ads promising them that their life will be fantastic instantly if they only bought {whatever} think that a president can alter the economy instantly and that if something good or bad happens then the person in charge must be 100% responsible for it.
Worse? These fuckwits are now often seen in senior positions in US corporations and believe that knee-jerk reactions trump long-term strategy. This does not bode well for US competitiveness long-term.
As a colleague of mine has put it multiple times: The Chinese are playing chess. Trump is playing Donkey Kong. Thing is it is not just Trump. He is just symptomatic of the larger problem of a country that has lost its way.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
It worked for Iceland as it's a small nation with a particular financial sector with respect to external financial assets. Not an option for most
Seems you are forgetting the $787B that obama asked Bush to appropriate before the inaguration. That was sold on the idea that instead of the sixteen months that economists were forecasting it would take from the start of the year to when the recession would end, it would only take nine months.
Go back and look at obama's speeching how he would do it all in nine months and make back the money requested because he would end the recession quickly.
In reality it took 18 months from that point before the recession was over.
Obama did nothing that deserves happy credit for helping the US economy. From this failed plans to end the recession early, to his hallmark cash-for-clunkers. At the best you can say he didn't lead us to another recessions however there are plenty of liberal economists and democrat party analysits that were forecasting a huge market crash last year so even his own party was expecting him to.
Obama took office in January 2009, the recession ended at the end of June 2009. That's not eighteen months. The ENTIRE recession was eighteen months, which might be the figure you are confusing it with.
In 2002-3 the fear in western nations was deflation and then the potential for a depression. Greenspan avoided that, but the can was only kicked as far as 2007. Hopefully the can is no longer in play.
The snark is good, but one of the (many) actual annoyances from Obamabots was how they would insist that Obama shouldn't hold people that wouldn't vote for him to account, because they might not vote for him.
I mean it's in Canadian dollars after all...
Um, the CBO would disagree with you. Or, rather, disagree the random conservative weblogger you're using as a source. Let us look at their "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020" document, which also has historical data going back decades:
* https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41880?index=10871
Let's start with Summary Figure 2, "Total Revenues and Outlays", where the Revenues line goes above the Outlays line. Then we have Figure 1-1, "The Total Deficit or Surplus, 1970 to 2020", where the line goes above 0 (i.e., a surplus). Finally there's table F-2, "Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1970 to 2009, as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product", where the years are 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 have a "Total" (Deficit or Surplus) that is positive in surplus.
And even if your (blogger's) numbers were correct, it would mean that Clinton manage to reduce the deficits by almost 95%. Not a bad accomplishment in its own right.
For all their bluster about fiscal conservativism, the GOP never bother being fiscal conservatives. All they seem to do when they get into power is cut revenues (i.e., taxes for the folks at the top percentiles of income (trickle down!)), and increase military spending.
not everyone working for him is also an idiot.
Most of them are, and with the recent personnel turnover, the level of incompetence is clearly increasing.
Well, I, for one, blame Canada.
Does that "and" compare to an economic crisis like the Great Depression?
The politifact link clarifies that "in US history" should actually be taken as "since 1929", which is one of the reasons why it got "mostly true". 1929 is the year starting from which US annual GDP (and growth thereof) data is available, and also coincides with both the Great Depression and the Hoover administration. Hoover went out of office in March 1933, and if you look at the raw data, you'll see that for the whole year of 1933 (so actually from begin 1933 to begin 1934), growth was a whopping 10%. Yes, this is all kinds of fscked up, but it is actually how you have to interpret the data to qualify Roscam's statement as "true". The 10% was of course a rebound effect of the great depression and a prelude to its resolution, as other economic indicators were still bad at the time; I don't think people would be very happy at all if, say, Trump were to give them that kind of 10%.
More generally spoken, the GDP made (to present standards) wild jumps up and down till about 1951, which made it pretty easy to achieve Roscam's artificial criterion of "a whole [calendar] year of 3 percent growth". After that there was a relative stability with average growth inching slightly lower every decade; eventually, someone was going to fall under that 3% threshold. Consequently, you can almost pick your president and adjust the 3% threshold to make him look "worse than any preceding president" ("almost" because of statistical noise).
TL;DR: with a lot of lawyering, Peter Roscam (R-Ill.) put together a carefully worded statement that would make Obama's economic record look quite bad when taken at face value, but that could easily be adapted to your president of choice and is therefore not all that meaningful. Politifact could't give it anything else than "mostly true" because the lawyering largely checks out, even though it's blatantly dishonest (and treading a thin line).
And you would have know all this if you'd given that politifact link an honest read.
My stock portfolio would like a word with you about his "good results".
And unlike the previous results he took so much credit for, but with the exception of the tax "reform" had absolutely nothing to do with, these latest bad results are a direct and immediate result of his lovely little trade war. And it will hit the pocketbooks of folks who own no stocks at all.
There's almost always a bit of a lag before a President begins to make his mark on the economy. Looks like we're seeing Trump making his mark right about.. now.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
You mean they took Abby's Brain.. Abby Normal's Brain?
The Dow was hurt by the subprime mortgage fiasco which could have been prevented with regulation (a dirty word to the GOP). You're thinking of the dot-bomb which affected mainly tech stocks (Nasdaq).
Trump's economy is still largely due to Obama's policies.....and the economy isn't actually booming for most people. They get the same crap pay or worse, no job security and now less security is access to health care thanks to Trump.
Only boring people are ever bored.
The U.S. has been damaged by the 2016 election and will suffer economically for decades. It may never really recover.
It looks like we are on the path to a full blown smoot-hawley Great Depression trade war. Except- it looks like it will be the U.S. against the entire world this time. Everyone else will simply route around the U.S. - leaving the U.S. in a weaker position even after it stops this nonsense.
It's just a fact that labor costs in India and China are much lower than in the U.S. And automated labor costs are even lower than in India and China (tho land is still much more expensive in the U.S. so the cost of doing business will remain mildly higher even when both automate).
Trends in inflation won't equalize labor in China until at least 2045 and in India until at least 2055.
--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So you get to pay taxes to two different countries?
I know, you're an AC...
The Community Reinvestment Act was signed by Clinton and is the primary driver of the subprime crisis. I don't understand why the GOP is being brought up related to this.
It's not about Obama, it's about fighting misconceptions about liberal financial policies (such as Obama's). Misconceptions that are partially responsible for putting "the current president" in place, and that may give you more of the same if you're not careful.