![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ButterKnifeMan (
article contribs).
![]() | On 16 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Bidenomics. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ButterKnifeMan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I created a heading on cryptocurrnecy with relevant information from her confirmation hearing and biden's recent executive orders. Is it worth having it's own section? And if it is, should it have its own heading, split up, or put into another section? Thanks. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 02:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the first graf of this section contains sweeping assertions that need to be supported by multiple sources. It appears to suggest Biden’s policy is a heterodox outlier, suggesting fringe, and that really needs strong support. Friedman’s asserted dominance of economic thought since 1980 is dubious. Despite efforts to demonize it because some oppose taxes, Keynesianism of some flavor appears to remain the dominant school of thought. soibangla ( talk) 18:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Rjensen, I don’t want to edit war with you, but your source does not support your above assertion. Please provide better sourcing or remove the assertion. soibangla ( talk) 19:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Bidenomics appears to be better served as a section of Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration rather than its current format as a stub I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CBO_Fcst1":
Reference named "Nonfarm Payrolls":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
does the article really need this much detail about it? I don't think we need a play-by-play of developments. soibangla ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
"Investment in clean energy" is mentioned in the intro, but does not appear in the article body. Biden has curtailed US oil and natural gas production, which causes rising energy costs, which adds fuel to inflation. Biden's policy on energy needs to be added here. JustinTime55 ( talk) 15:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
To the extent that anyone can nail down "Bidenomics" to a set of policies or even a general philosophy towards policymaking, it seems to entail "a mixture of protectionism, subsidies and social measures at a time of full employment" [2]. And while the Biden administration likes to project the façade of relying on advice from mainstream economists (eg appointing Janet Yellen to head the Treasury), the people who are actually informing his policy agenda are total amateurs and "geopoliticians" like Jake Sullivan. This alone should ring warning bells as to the actual effects these policies have been having on the economy.
In the last paragraph of the lead, we find a litany of positive economic developments over the last 2 years -job growth, low unemployment rate, stock market gains, easing inflation -with the implication that all this growth and stability had something to do with Biden administration policies. Of course economic analysis involves a lot more than trumpeting facts (or "Trump"-ing facts?) and making unsubstantiated claims about causality: facts are important, but facts need to be contextualized and logically interpreted for them to have any meaning. On closer inspection, one finds that almost none of these developments had anything to do with Biden policies, not even indirectly.
Take job growth as an example. Over a million jobs have been added to the economy since January, but these gains have occurred disproportionately in the hospitality and leisure sector [3] [4], followed by business services [5]. What actually happened was, people have been returning to their offices after a long covid recession and remote working, which has fueled demand for hospitality/leisure services (more flights, more business meetings, more catering etc). This was a trend that started before Biden took office and so had nothing to do with his silly "industrial policy". Manufacturing employment has struggled to reach and maintain its pre-covid levels, and the sector actually lost ~40,000 jobs in June [6]. (Note the ADP count was revised down significantly in the official jobs report -only 209,000 jobs were added last month, below the consensus estimate.)
Biden has also made several economic claims over the last 2 years that have been rated totally false or mostly false by fact checkers. With respect to inflation, when Biden was selling his $1.9 trillion stimulus he claimed that it had broad support among economists across the ideological spectrum, which Politifact rated mostly false [7]. The general consensus among economists is that while Biden's stimulus wasn't a primary cause of peak inflation, he certainly spent too much money too fast and put more upward pressure on prices. What actually curbed inflation was the Federal Reserve's monetary policy (target rate hikes), which is exactly what you'd predict from mainstream macroeconomic theory. Once again the Biden administration meddled in the economy, made it worse and then claimed credit for central bank policies.
Finally (and I can go on but this is very long already), the section on trade policy cites Biden's trade rep. Katherine Tai -another total amateur with no background in trade economics. Readers should be made aware that there's broad economic consensus against Biden's "industrial policy" and "Buy American" programs [8] [9] and broad support for trade liberalization [10] [11]. This might be why none of Biden's trade advisors have expertise in international trade.
In too many places in this article, we find the type of political cheerleading and economic cluelessness you'd expect from partisan journalists, but not the sort of thing you'd want in an encyclopedia. This article should strive for more context, neutrality and a greater reliance on reliable sources. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 05:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Wow, I mean if the Biden admin wants a new campaign ad, they should just put a QR code to this press release on billboards across the country lol. The way gas prices (one of the top news stories of the economy) was mentioned... once... on a graphic.... the overwhelming use of graphics created by the WHITE HOUSE (not to mention quotes and talking points)... the blatant lies ("the unemployment rate averaged 3.6%, the lowest since 1969" this was in 2019...) overuse of priming language (strong, robust, threatened), attributing all the positive economic growth to Biden (not natural pandemic recovery that would happen regardless... and was toward the end of 2020) but inflation, oh that's part of a "global inflation surge" I mean wtf is up with the section entitled "Welfare state"
Those who wrote this should be embarrassed (unless they work for the White House, in which congrats this stayed up this long) and any Wikipedians with dignity and a respect for the goals of Wikipedia should be on high priority to start from scratch and rewrite this whole entry...
2601:648:8800:3B70:55A2:7261:2AED:53E8 (
talk)
00:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This was the case for precisely every presidential administration that's existed since this data's been collectedno, see 1973 thru 1995 [14] soibangla ( talk) 01:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Who wrote this crap, The White House? How about the Railroad Union Employees who were stabbed in the back by this pro-union President? 2600:8801:E800:4EEF:8B2:B526:8B71:8918 ( talk) 22:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I have recently read quite a few articles criticizing Bidenomics, and I think this article is honestly a bit outdated. Should it not also at least include a brief criticism section? I am not a Republican either, I truly think that Biden is a decent individual, he tries his best, yet we should not and cannot ignore his mistakes and shortcomings either. In fact, this NY Times article notes a mixed review for Biden's policies: [15]
Basically, yes, Biden did create millions of job no doubt, yet U.S. inflation has risen significantly. And the markets' review is much more mixed: "A partial win: the markets. Investors tend to give high marks to presidents whose tenures coincide with strong investment returns. The S&P 500 has gained nearly 15 percent since Biden’s inauguration, weathering much of the slump set off by the Fed’s historic rates-tightening policy. (The bond market has gone in the opposite direction.). That’s decent, but pales in comparison with the Trump years, when the benchmark index climbed more than 65 percent." And if you want a more updated review, take this NY Times article from 6 days ago: Voters Aren’t Believing in Bidenomics
Why do some people here ignore Bidenomics' criticisms and flaws, when so many other online sources call them on a frequent basis? And some of their criticisms are very valid. Biden is continuing a largely neoliberal policy, but ironically claiming to be against those things. Even other Wikipedian articles have acknowledged that Biden's marks for the economy have generally not been superb. And these articles too from mainstream media outlets also criticize these policies: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] And these: [21] [22][ [23]] The Motley Fool website (about 2 months ago) in particular notes that 66% of Americans say the policy is generally NOT working.
And is it a coincidence that 3 in 4 swing state voters are not favorably regarding the policies either? I only mean to say that to evaluate a public official, we MUST cover both their strengths and achievements, AND their criticisms and failings in reasonably equal manner. [24] WalterPerry32 ( talk) 06:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Let's review this again when there is a more concrete representation of the proposed name being the common name and not a recentism thing. – robertsky ( talk) 05:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration → Bidenomics – It is the official name that the Biden administration is using for it and goes along with articles such as Reaganomics and Abenomics. MountainDew20 ( talk) 00:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Much like the Biden administration's habit of citing fake academic consensus in favor of its policies, most of this section is sourced to political opinion and assertion. It uses language like "the old view" and "the new view" but does not actually explain to readers whose "views" these are (I mean, these are political views for the most part). In the subsection on trade and globalization, for example, readers are told that there's been little change between Biden policies and those of the Trump administration, yet Trump's protectionism was roundly criticized by 100s of economists (more than a thousand signed this letter [26]). Here's an article in Foreign Affairs by a mainstream economist condemning the anti-globalization populism of both the Trump & Biden administrations [27].
Also, since most of Biden's policies prioritize income/wealth inequality reduction over economic growth (as several administration officials have explicitly said), some mention should be made of the fact that, according to most sources, inequality has gotten worse during Biden's tenure. [28] [29] [30].
Critical sources are there so it is really a matter of initiative. And I'm not the only one here who feels like some of this article reads like a puff piece. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 19:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ButterKnifeMan (
article contribs).
![]() | On 16 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Bidenomics. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ButterKnifeMan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I created a heading on cryptocurrnecy with relevant information from her confirmation hearing and biden's recent executive orders. Is it worth having it's own section? And if it is, should it have its own heading, split up, or put into another section? Thanks. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 02:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the first graf of this section contains sweeping assertions that need to be supported by multiple sources. It appears to suggest Biden’s policy is a heterodox outlier, suggesting fringe, and that really needs strong support. Friedman’s asserted dominance of economic thought since 1980 is dubious. Despite efforts to demonize it because some oppose taxes, Keynesianism of some flavor appears to remain the dominant school of thought. soibangla ( talk) 18:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Rjensen, I don’t want to edit war with you, but your source does not support your above assertion. Please provide better sourcing or remove the assertion. soibangla ( talk) 19:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Bidenomics appears to be better served as a section of Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration rather than its current format as a stub I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CBO_Fcst1":
Reference named "Nonfarm Payrolls":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
does the article really need this much detail about it? I don't think we need a play-by-play of developments. soibangla ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
"Investment in clean energy" is mentioned in the intro, but does not appear in the article body. Biden has curtailed US oil and natural gas production, which causes rising energy costs, which adds fuel to inflation. Biden's policy on energy needs to be added here. JustinTime55 ( talk) 15:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
To the extent that anyone can nail down "Bidenomics" to a set of policies or even a general philosophy towards policymaking, it seems to entail "a mixture of protectionism, subsidies and social measures at a time of full employment" [2]. And while the Biden administration likes to project the façade of relying on advice from mainstream economists (eg appointing Janet Yellen to head the Treasury), the people who are actually informing his policy agenda are total amateurs and "geopoliticians" like Jake Sullivan. This alone should ring warning bells as to the actual effects these policies have been having on the economy.
In the last paragraph of the lead, we find a litany of positive economic developments over the last 2 years -job growth, low unemployment rate, stock market gains, easing inflation -with the implication that all this growth and stability had something to do with Biden administration policies. Of course economic analysis involves a lot more than trumpeting facts (or "Trump"-ing facts?) and making unsubstantiated claims about causality: facts are important, but facts need to be contextualized and logically interpreted for them to have any meaning. On closer inspection, one finds that almost none of these developments had anything to do with Biden policies, not even indirectly.
Take job growth as an example. Over a million jobs have been added to the economy since January, but these gains have occurred disproportionately in the hospitality and leisure sector [3] [4], followed by business services [5]. What actually happened was, people have been returning to their offices after a long covid recession and remote working, which has fueled demand for hospitality/leisure services (more flights, more business meetings, more catering etc). This was a trend that started before Biden took office and so had nothing to do with his silly "industrial policy". Manufacturing employment has struggled to reach and maintain its pre-covid levels, and the sector actually lost ~40,000 jobs in June [6]. (Note the ADP count was revised down significantly in the official jobs report -only 209,000 jobs were added last month, below the consensus estimate.)
Biden has also made several economic claims over the last 2 years that have been rated totally false or mostly false by fact checkers. With respect to inflation, when Biden was selling his $1.9 trillion stimulus he claimed that it had broad support among economists across the ideological spectrum, which Politifact rated mostly false [7]. The general consensus among economists is that while Biden's stimulus wasn't a primary cause of peak inflation, he certainly spent too much money too fast and put more upward pressure on prices. What actually curbed inflation was the Federal Reserve's monetary policy (target rate hikes), which is exactly what you'd predict from mainstream macroeconomic theory. Once again the Biden administration meddled in the economy, made it worse and then claimed credit for central bank policies.
Finally (and I can go on but this is very long already), the section on trade policy cites Biden's trade rep. Katherine Tai -another total amateur with no background in trade economics. Readers should be made aware that there's broad economic consensus against Biden's "industrial policy" and "Buy American" programs [8] [9] and broad support for trade liberalization [10] [11]. This might be why none of Biden's trade advisors have expertise in international trade.
In too many places in this article, we find the type of political cheerleading and economic cluelessness you'd expect from partisan journalists, but not the sort of thing you'd want in an encyclopedia. This article should strive for more context, neutrality and a greater reliance on reliable sources. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 05:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Wow, I mean if the Biden admin wants a new campaign ad, they should just put a QR code to this press release on billboards across the country lol. The way gas prices (one of the top news stories of the economy) was mentioned... once... on a graphic.... the overwhelming use of graphics created by the WHITE HOUSE (not to mention quotes and talking points)... the blatant lies ("the unemployment rate averaged 3.6%, the lowest since 1969" this was in 2019...) overuse of priming language (strong, robust, threatened), attributing all the positive economic growth to Biden (not natural pandemic recovery that would happen regardless... and was toward the end of 2020) but inflation, oh that's part of a "global inflation surge" I mean wtf is up with the section entitled "Welfare state"
Those who wrote this should be embarrassed (unless they work for the White House, in which congrats this stayed up this long) and any Wikipedians with dignity and a respect for the goals of Wikipedia should be on high priority to start from scratch and rewrite this whole entry...
2601:648:8800:3B70:55A2:7261:2AED:53E8 (
talk)
00:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This was the case for precisely every presidential administration that's existed since this data's been collectedno, see 1973 thru 1995 [14] soibangla ( talk) 01:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Who wrote this crap, The White House? How about the Railroad Union Employees who were stabbed in the back by this pro-union President? 2600:8801:E800:4EEF:8B2:B526:8B71:8918 ( talk) 22:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I have recently read quite a few articles criticizing Bidenomics, and I think this article is honestly a bit outdated. Should it not also at least include a brief criticism section? I am not a Republican either, I truly think that Biden is a decent individual, he tries his best, yet we should not and cannot ignore his mistakes and shortcomings either. In fact, this NY Times article notes a mixed review for Biden's policies: [15]
Basically, yes, Biden did create millions of job no doubt, yet U.S. inflation has risen significantly. And the markets' review is much more mixed: "A partial win: the markets. Investors tend to give high marks to presidents whose tenures coincide with strong investment returns. The S&P 500 has gained nearly 15 percent since Biden’s inauguration, weathering much of the slump set off by the Fed’s historic rates-tightening policy. (The bond market has gone in the opposite direction.). That’s decent, but pales in comparison with the Trump years, when the benchmark index climbed more than 65 percent." And if you want a more updated review, take this NY Times article from 6 days ago: Voters Aren’t Believing in Bidenomics
Why do some people here ignore Bidenomics' criticisms and flaws, when so many other online sources call them on a frequent basis? And some of their criticisms are very valid. Biden is continuing a largely neoliberal policy, but ironically claiming to be against those things. Even other Wikipedian articles have acknowledged that Biden's marks for the economy have generally not been superb. And these articles too from mainstream media outlets also criticize these policies: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] And these: [21] [22][ [23]] The Motley Fool website (about 2 months ago) in particular notes that 66% of Americans say the policy is generally NOT working.
And is it a coincidence that 3 in 4 swing state voters are not favorably regarding the policies either? I only mean to say that to evaluate a public official, we MUST cover both their strengths and achievements, AND their criticisms and failings in reasonably equal manner. [24] WalterPerry32 ( talk) 06:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Let's review this again when there is a more concrete representation of the proposed name being the common name and not a recentism thing. – robertsky ( talk) 05:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration → Bidenomics – It is the official name that the Biden administration is using for it and goes along with articles such as Reaganomics and Abenomics. MountainDew20 ( talk) 00:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Much like the Biden administration's habit of citing fake academic consensus in favor of its policies, most of this section is sourced to political opinion and assertion. It uses language like "the old view" and "the new view" but does not actually explain to readers whose "views" these are (I mean, these are political views for the most part). In the subsection on trade and globalization, for example, readers are told that there's been little change between Biden policies and those of the Trump administration, yet Trump's protectionism was roundly criticized by 100s of economists (more than a thousand signed this letter [26]). Here's an article in Foreign Affairs by a mainstream economist condemning the anti-globalization populism of both the Trump & Biden administrations [27].
Also, since most of Biden's policies prioritize income/wealth inequality reduction over economic growth (as several administration officials have explicitly said), some mention should be made of the fact that, according to most sources, inequality has gotten worse during Biden's tenure. [28] [29] [30].
Critical sources are there so it is really a matter of initiative. And I'm not the only one here who feels like some of this article reads like a puff piece. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 19:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)