[siliconc0w]

* Tariffs are hurting most real-world jobs - you don't know what your inputs will cost in 6-12 months and so can't plan

* Political Corruption - you don't know if your permit, M&A, or regulatory rule-change will go through without a bribe to the right person

* Tech, which makes up most of the market, is all in on AI - these companies are late stage and the AI narrative is the only growth story so the market doesn't reward them for investing in anything else

* Cheap globally accessible labor

* Lack of enforcement of anti-trust means stodgy uncompetitive markets with players that make their margin through rent-seeking rather than increasing production or quality of goods and services.

* Poor investments and corruption in our healthcare system make it really expensive to hire Americans

* Poor investments and corruption in education make many Americans unsuitable for high skilled work.

[stinkbeetle]

Not to be rude, but is this just a list of your feelings on the matter or is there real data and consensus behind them?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13025703

The biggest jumps in the past 50 years appear to coincide with W Bush and Obama administrations. They certainly did have tariffs then, but were they responsible there? How about corruption? AI was not, but there was an analogous dot com bubble but by 2000 and beyond we were on the other side of it and tech demand was actually bursting! Not long after which unemployment went up, so it wasn't the overinflated bubble that caused unemployment. Cheap globally accessible labor has not just recently become available. Anti-trust was pretty weak for a long time. Healthcare system is terribly expensive and corrupt and arguably Obamacare made it worse.

[fuzzfactor]

>Cheap globally accessible labor has not just recently become available. Anti-trust was pretty weak for a long time. Healthcare system is terribly expensive and corrupt and arguably Obamacare made it worse.

It's good that you pointed out some of the examples that may not be wholly responsible, but have surely compounded over quite some time and may very well be worse on the ground than the most realistic statistics could ever measure very meaningfully.

I wouldn't say the bullet points are hit or miss, more like some home-runs and some bunts.

Good chart from the FED, but experience has shown that 2010 to 2012 was a noth.ing.burger compared to 1976 nor 1983. You ain't seen no "real" recession yet.

And that's the most highly referenced statistic we have so it shows how widely skewed and unrealistic it can be to take things like this at face value when it comes to comparing data over time.

Remember currency had huge changes in real value at different points while its face value stayed the same, and the purpose of these charts was to not let that seem like the dominating factor.

Same as the purpose of inventing GDP in such a way there could never be valid comparison to traditional GNP.

Edit: not my downvote, corrective upvote actually, that's the most accurate data there is so it's still better to have than nothing, and to gather what it means when you understand its undercurrents for over 50 full years first hand

[seanmcdirmid]

Obama and Bush came after Clinton pushed through the WTO stuff with China. Free trade most definitely had a positive factor in the economy in the next 16 years, even if tariffs still existed. A lot of the blowback from the Trumpers is that not everyone benefitted equally, not that the economy didnt benefit from it overall (ironically speaking they elected a billionaire due to equality issues).