The trade deficit difference between Obama and Trump averaged an extra 92,035B per year. The difference between Biden and Trump is averaging 280,567B per year. Nobody is buying that much extra Chinese made crap.
The interest rate is almost triple that of the Trump years. Groceries are higher. Energy is also higher:

Utility (piped) gas per therm: Obama - 1.15, Trump - 1.06, Biden - 1.27.
Gasoline (all types): Obama - 2.06 per gal. (8 year avg.), Trump (4) - 2.32 a gal., Biden (3 years) - 2.90 per gal.
Electricity per KWH: Obama - 0.1295, Trump - 0.135, Biden - 0.1525

Arguably the main reason Trump is leading Biden in many polls (within the margins of error) is because the Biden economy sucks and people can feel it in their billfold/purse.

Anyone with any basic understanding of economics will tell you that some policies take years to grow teeth.

People have short memories.

That wasn't the issue at all. Yes you did post some factual statistics (Thank You) and you should realize by now that I don't expect strict party loyalty and don't engage in it. I merely pointed out that you left out both some other factual metrics and also the factors leading up to those numbers AND the resolution of those issues. It wasn't about any "narrative". It was about a complete picture. I find "narrative" to be rather typical terminology code word for MAGA types to actually mean "fake". I actually expected more from you than mere formula blowoff.

Here's one example of a balanced review - https://www.politifact.com/article/2...ho-did-better/

True but it has been 7 years... Unfortunately this also applies to inflation.

Natural gas and crude oil are global commodities and the President has little or no control over their prices. We are the worlds largest oil producer.

Your welcome.
Please tell me what "factual metric" you are using to differentiate between the damage done by Covid to Trump's economy in his last year and Biden's first year?


For some reason this link didn't show in your post till I went to quote it?
"In January, Biden highlighted that Trump was the first president to oversee a net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover, who was in office when the Great Depression hit — but failed to mention the 2020 pandemic caused the nosedive. ...Biden benefited from favorable timing. He was inaugurated January 2021, as the pandemic started receding. Although the jobs recovery began under Trump, Biden was blessed with a steady flow of Americans moving back into jobs that had been hampered during the pandemic."

"Another factor in the expanding labor market — though one that’s become a political two-edged sword — has been higher immigration rates under Biden. ...Inflation did not hamper Trump. During his first three years in office, Trump saw wages outpace inflation — the opposite of Biden."

"If you start with Biden’s first day in office, prices have risen faster than wages — never a good sign for a president seeking reelection."

"Today, gasoline prices remain about one-third higher than they were when Biden took office. That’s a bigger percentage increase after three years than under Clinton, Bush or Trump. Obama fared worse; gasoline prices were 89% higher at his three-year mark."

Edit: Now it shows. Timing I guess.

I just want to say – perhaps in defense of "Officeholders" – is that there is actually very little that an "Executive [Branch] Officeholder" can do.

First of all, "he is probably [barely|not] in control of" the actual actions of "'His|Her' (hah, hah ...) Executive Branch."

Second: "The real decisions must be settled by 'Congress.'"

Third: "'Congress' == (oh, sh&t)"

No wonder (maybe ...) George Washington resigned!

Re: inflation
Normally, corporate profit taking is THE major factor.
Fiscal policy is second, and act is reaction rather than causing change directly.
Economic factors OTHER than profit taking usually come in third.
Political policy that affects the economy is generally way down the line. It became a major factor twice during the Trump administration: first because his destruction of existing trade treaties reversed some price agreements so that some prices rose abruptly, and again when his 2017 destruction of the international US team to detect and control epidemics and his mismanagement of COVID and the intel about it all came home at once and the early effects of the supply chain disruptions began to be felt. For politics to have such a MAJOR effect is rare and painful.

We now see a factor that may be far more significant than all of the above in the long run. https://www.sciencealert.com/scienti...ar-from-now-on

It's certainly possible that higher heat and co2 levels could become a factor in food production in future years as the Earth continues to warm up from the last ice age. It's also likely that detrimental effects will first be evident in 3rd World economies.
Of 10 major and minor crops grown in the U.S. in the historically high temp and carbon dioxide levels of the last decade+, only oats have shown a significant average drop in production. I haven't had a chance to work on the data I posted here 2 years ago but will try to do an update soon:

Quite honestly, I also see the presence of "measurement bias."

Because you think that you can – or, in this case, could have – "measured" actually-tiny(!) differences in things like "climate," you now focus upon them, and use them to "explain everything."

Also, many people overlook the fact that the "global warming" they are actually talking about is around 1-3ºC. Across an "entire planet" which simultaneously experiences both summer and winter. I very-seriously doubt that any of them possess the technical capability to "pontificate" with the "certainty" that all of them are now doing.

Quite candidly, I instead openly suspect that this actually has much to do with politics, and (especially ...) with it: money. After all, "a lifetime academic has to get paid somehow." Bonus-points if he or she manages to get rich.

The ones to listen to are the scientists who have dedicated their LIVES to the study of these things and ABSOLUTELY have the technical capacity to "pontificate" with "certainty" on these issues. That each year is globally hotter than the last for the last 50, and that last year was the hottest in 10,000 years, is something some really seem to want to ignore. We should not ignore the facts just because they make us uncomfortable.

You misunderstand. It is not some undefined time in the future. Climate change disruption to food production HAS been a factor, is continuing to be a factor, and will be a greater factor with time. And production of HUNDREDS of crops have been affected already. IT will get worse. Grapes, coffee, bananas might be familiar to you, but critical food crops around the world are at immediate risk.

Possible, but I don't think so. I think it more likely that I wasn't clear enough in my response.

I'm sorry there just is no proof of widespread harm to the World's major food crops, yet.
I read both your link and the report upon which it was based. Both clearly indicate that Africa and South America are more likely to be affected first even though their study postulates that this result is "despite projected warming being greater at higher latitudes" and thus my reference to 3rd World economies.
Common sense tells us that at some point higher temps and co2 has to start affecting 'our' crops. I can state with great confidence that it hasn't happened 'here' yet. In fact, corn set a new production record in 2023 and several other crops came close. I don't know what is causing higher grocery prices here because we are producing more food than ever but Biden is the 'quarterback' so he gets the blame.

The United Nations FAO food report shows no downward turn in food production. Yes, there are places in the World suffering famine because of drought and military conflict but as a whole, thw World has produced more food in the last 20 years than ever in it's history:
"→ The global production of primary crop commodities reached 9.5 billion
tonnes in 2021, increasing by 54 percent since 2000 and 2 percent since
2020.
→ The global production of cereals went up 64 million tonnes, or
2.1 percent, between 2020 and 2021, driven by a 4.1 percent increases
in maize production. Maize, wheat and rice accounted for 90 percent of
the total cereals production in 2021.
→ The world production of sugar crops increased marginally between
2020 and 2021. Sugar cane is the main sugar crop, with 1.9 billion
tonnes in 2021, compared 270 million tonnes in 2021 for sugar beet.
→ Roots and tubers global production rose by 1.9 percent between 2020
and 2021, mostly due to an increase in cassava and potatoes
production.
→ In 2021, world fruit and vegetable production reached 910 million
tonnes (+1.1 percent from 2020) and 1.2 billion tonnes (+1.4 percent),
respectively.
→ The production of oil palm fruit, soya beans and rapeseed, the main oil
crops contributing to vegetable oils, reached a volume of 859 million
tons in 2021, increasing by 2 percent from 2020.
→ Chicken, pig, and cattle were the main meats produced worldwide,
accounting for 316 million tonnes in 2021.
→ China’s pig meat production recovered in 2021 after the low volumes of
2019–2020 caused by the African swine fever outbreak." https://www.fao.org/3/cc3751en/cc3751en.pdf

"Exogenous pressures on inflation from projected future temperature conditions are generally larger in the global south, with the largest pressures found across Africa and South America robustly across specifications (Fig. 2 & Supplementary Figs. S10–12). This occurs despite projected warming being greater at higher latitudes (Supplementary Fig. S13). ...Nevertheless, the magnitudes of pressures on inflation are also already considerable by 2035 across advanced economies, in the range of 1-2% on food inflation in North America and Europe under our baseline specification." https://files.springernature.com/get...Gdat1b2MZNo%3D

"Grapes (Global Production) 10 Year Average MY 2014-2023 25.36 Million Metric Tons
10-Year Compound Average Growth 2% MY 2014-2023
2022/2023 Production 27.9 Million Metric Tons
2023/2024 Production 28.39 Million Metric Tons Year over Year % Change 2%"
https://fas.usda.gov/data/production/commodity/0575100

"2023/24 Coffee Overview
World coffee production for 2023/24 is forecast to reach 171.4 million bags (60 kilograms), 6.9 million bags higher than the previous year. Higher output in Brazil, Colombia, and Ethiopia is expected to more than offset reduced production in Indonesia. Global coffee bean exports are expected up 8.4 million bags to 119.9 million, primarily on strong shipments from Brazil."
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/...ars/coffee.pdf

I couldn't find much production data for bananas past 2016

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-07/california-s-wine-industry-faces-climate-tipping-point [url]
This is a major US crop, and critical to the economy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9824350/Note; the USA cannot grow coffee anywhere except (a small crop) Hawaii. We import form the countries where it is rapidly changing such that the coffee harvest will not succeed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9914188/ Rice is imported to the USA and is an important food staple, but it is a critical food component for half of the world population!

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/g...a-study-finds/ General grain crops such as wheat and corn/maize are in trouble, but not yet critical. Critical may be reached in less than ten years. If you wait until you are starving to react it will be too late. These crops are not only directly food, but also the food sources for our domestic meat animals!

And in case starvation does not worry you, get a load of THIS: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67078674 You not only starve, you cannot even enjoy one last brew before you go!

I'm confused where you are seeing "critical may be reached in less than ten years" in that article, could you explain? (for starters, the article doesn't use the word "critical", so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it)