This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Economic policy of Donald Trump was copied or moved into Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration with this edit on 23 March 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I added this to the opening segment:
"The unemployment rate declined to 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years, 6.6 million jobs were created, including nearly half a million manufacturing jobs, while financial markets saw substantial gains, with the S&P 500 increasing by 47% throughout Trumps first three years."
I provided multiple citations, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500, all of those claims are relevant and true, yet it got deleted. I don't understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.134.229 ( talk) 06:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I was just restating it. Giving more context. Other information in the body of the article is restated in the opening section. It makes sense to include it as an overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.134.229 ( talk) 06:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The S&P 500 increased over twice as fast in Trumps first three years (47%) than it did in Obamas last three (23%). The reason why it increased more in the first three years of Obamas FIRST term is because he inherited a market that had dropped more than 45% since its peak, contrary to Trump who inherited a market that was already high. Thats a totally unfair comparison, so its totally reasonable to include the fact that the market increased by 47% percent, especially since that is substantially more than the increase in the previous three years. As far as jobs are concerned, 6.6 million is more than TRIPPLE what was projected by the CBO for the 2017-2019 period. The reason why it was more in the previous three years is because the lower the unemployment rate is, naturally less jobs are going to be created. Still though, 6.6 million is WAY more than what was projected by the CBO if Obama's policies were to have continued. As far as manufacturing as concerned. There were 475,000 manufacturing jobs created, 64% more than in the previous three years, matter fact in 2016, 6000 manufacturing jobs were lost, and they began increasing again immediately after Trump got elected. Look at the chart. Also, 475,000 is more than ANY president after three years since the Jimmy Carter. All of these are relevant statistics to include in the Opening section. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.80.134.229 (
talk)
21:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Your right that the stock market was on the upward trend for years, however was significantly slower in Obamas second term than it was in his first. That doesn't take away from the fact that the gain under Trump was more than twice as great as it was in the previous three years. And the fact is, there were more than 3 times as many jobs created than what the CBO projected, and job creation was already slowing down when he took office. 2016, was about 400,000 jobs slower than 2015, which was about 300,000 jobs slower than 2014. And the unemployment rate was not projected to go all the way down to 3.5 percent. And regarding oil prices, did oil prices go up right after Trump got elected? Because thats what would of had to happen in order for your argument to be true.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-30/trump-s-economy-really-was-better-than-obama-s
https://www.wsj.com/articles/remember-the-trump-economy-11598396570
This article is blatantly biased, with too many examples to name here. How do we get it nominated for review? 50.246.108.45 ( talk) 19:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Added the neutrality tag. This article is ridiculously biased. According to any standards.
1. Opening paragraph loaded with biased sources like Washington Post, NY times, etc. No Wall Street Journal? Not even BBC or Hill? Really? 2. Opening paragraph completely omits any positive change during 2017-2019 (see 3.), instead tries to harm his image as much as possible 3. Infographics fail to display such thing like GDP grouth rate and GDP per capita growth where Trump clearly beats Obama (without Obama first year and Trump last year) 4. I see no mention of lowering the stagnant Obama last two years unemployment rate.
Its a shame wikipedia fails to uphold the neutrality policy when adressing such important issues. Instead its clear politically biased editotrs roam freely around here. 188.112.82.24 ( talk) 20:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The opening section misinterprets one of the few worthy sources it mentions in a highly biased fashion: tries to suggest Trump "inherited" a good economy and nothing more. Clearly false.
Unemployment: The source clearly states a 5.6% historical norm with Trump reaching a 50 year low at 3.5%. Obamas best was at about 4.7% when Trump took office. Trump not only outperformed this by an additional -1.2% (more than Obamas distance from the norm) but signifficantly outperformed the FEDs expectations - something Obama failed to achieve. source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-boom-is-real-11603659361
Adittionaly, the sencion omits virtually anything positive the source mentions. Like "The economy grew somewhat faster under Trump — but not at the rate he promised." On the other hand, ads something negative throughout the entire section. Is this supposed to be Wikipedia neutrality? Its a bad joke.
GDP: Trumps 2017-2019 growth rate was 2.5 compared to Obamas 2.2 growth average (2010-2016)
Literally no mention of the inflation rate.
But its not just the opening section, the entire article seems biased like nothing I have ever seen on wikipedia.
Like "Trump presided over the slowest economic growth of any U.S. president since the Second World War." Really? Clearly contradicts the above mentioned source. Needs to be complety reviewed, fact checked and rewritten. 188.112.120.205 ( talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
188.112.70.156 ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, anyone else has objections to my intended rewriting (other than user Soibangla with his edit history) ? 188.112.84.183 ( talk) 20:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Economic policy of Donald Trump was copied or moved into Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration with this edit on 23 March 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I added this to the opening segment:
"The unemployment rate declined to 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years, 6.6 million jobs were created, including nearly half a million manufacturing jobs, while financial markets saw substantial gains, with the S&P 500 increasing by 47% throughout Trumps first three years."
I provided multiple citations, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500, all of those claims are relevant and true, yet it got deleted. I don't understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.134.229 ( talk) 06:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I was just restating it. Giving more context. Other information in the body of the article is restated in the opening section. It makes sense to include it as an overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.134.229 ( talk) 06:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The S&P 500 increased over twice as fast in Trumps first three years (47%) than it did in Obamas last three (23%). The reason why it increased more in the first three years of Obamas FIRST term is because he inherited a market that had dropped more than 45% since its peak, contrary to Trump who inherited a market that was already high. Thats a totally unfair comparison, so its totally reasonable to include the fact that the market increased by 47% percent, especially since that is substantially more than the increase in the previous three years. As far as jobs are concerned, 6.6 million is more than TRIPPLE what was projected by the CBO for the 2017-2019 period. The reason why it was more in the previous three years is because the lower the unemployment rate is, naturally less jobs are going to be created. Still though, 6.6 million is WAY more than what was projected by the CBO if Obama's policies were to have continued. As far as manufacturing as concerned. There were 475,000 manufacturing jobs created, 64% more than in the previous three years, matter fact in 2016, 6000 manufacturing jobs were lost, and they began increasing again immediately after Trump got elected. Look at the chart. Also, 475,000 is more than ANY president after three years since the Jimmy Carter. All of these are relevant statistics to include in the Opening section. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.80.134.229 (
talk)
21:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Your right that the stock market was on the upward trend for years, however was significantly slower in Obamas second term than it was in his first. That doesn't take away from the fact that the gain under Trump was more than twice as great as it was in the previous three years. And the fact is, there were more than 3 times as many jobs created than what the CBO projected, and job creation was already slowing down when he took office. 2016, was about 400,000 jobs slower than 2015, which was about 300,000 jobs slower than 2014. And the unemployment rate was not projected to go all the way down to 3.5 percent. And regarding oil prices, did oil prices go up right after Trump got elected? Because thats what would of had to happen in order for your argument to be true.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-30/trump-s-economy-really-was-better-than-obama-s
https://www.wsj.com/articles/remember-the-trump-economy-11598396570
This article is blatantly biased, with too many examples to name here. How do we get it nominated for review? 50.246.108.45 ( talk) 19:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Added the neutrality tag. This article is ridiculously biased. According to any standards.
1. Opening paragraph loaded with biased sources like Washington Post, NY times, etc. No Wall Street Journal? Not even BBC or Hill? Really? 2. Opening paragraph completely omits any positive change during 2017-2019 (see 3.), instead tries to harm his image as much as possible 3. Infographics fail to display such thing like GDP grouth rate and GDP per capita growth where Trump clearly beats Obama (without Obama first year and Trump last year) 4. I see no mention of lowering the stagnant Obama last two years unemployment rate.
Its a shame wikipedia fails to uphold the neutrality policy when adressing such important issues. Instead its clear politically biased editotrs roam freely around here. 188.112.82.24 ( talk) 20:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The opening section misinterprets one of the few worthy sources it mentions in a highly biased fashion: tries to suggest Trump "inherited" a good economy and nothing more. Clearly false.
Unemployment: The source clearly states a 5.6% historical norm with Trump reaching a 50 year low at 3.5%. Obamas best was at about 4.7% when Trump took office. Trump not only outperformed this by an additional -1.2% (more than Obamas distance from the norm) but signifficantly outperformed the FEDs expectations - something Obama failed to achieve. source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-boom-is-real-11603659361
Adittionaly, the sencion omits virtually anything positive the source mentions. Like "The economy grew somewhat faster under Trump — but not at the rate he promised." On the other hand, ads something negative throughout the entire section. Is this supposed to be Wikipedia neutrality? Its a bad joke.
GDP: Trumps 2017-2019 growth rate was 2.5 compared to Obamas 2.2 growth average (2010-2016)
Literally no mention of the inflation rate.
But its not just the opening section, the entire article seems biased like nothing I have ever seen on wikipedia.
Like "Trump presided over the slowest economic growth of any U.S. president since the Second World War." Really? Clearly contradicts the above mentioned source. Needs to be complety reviewed, fact checked and rewritten. 188.112.120.205 ( talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
188.112.70.156 ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, anyone else has objections to my intended rewriting (other than user Soibangla with his edit history) ? 188.112.84.183 ( talk) 20:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)