本帖由 ccc 于 2017-08-02 发布。版面名称：渥太华华人论坛
That is a treasonous act! - according to the president.
(CNN) President Donald Trump spent the morning bragging about the economy. At least one of his claims didn't come close to being true.
"The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!" the president said in a tweet.
The first two numbers are correct, although they measure completely different things, and in different ways.
The overall US economy grew at a 4.2% annual rate in the second quarter. Unemployment was between 3.8% and 4% during the quarter, and it came in at 3.9% in August.
That's all good news.
"It's definitely better when it's true than when it's not," said Justin Wolfers, professor of economics at University of Michigan. "I like high GDP growth and low unemployment."
But Trump got it wrong — way wrong — when he said it hasn't happened in a century.
In the last 70 years, it's happened in at least 62 quarters, most recently in 2006.
"He wasn't even in the neighborhood of right," Wolfers said in an interview.
Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged to reporters later in the day that the president's tweet was incorrect. He pointed out it was the first time in 10 years that GDP growth exceeded the unemployment rate.
"And at some point, somebody probably conveyed it to him, adding a zero to that, and they shouldn't have done that," he said.
Wolfers had tweeted a response to Trump's claim soon after he made it. In fact, it took him two tweets to list all the quarters in which economic growth was higher than the unemployment rate. He added a chart.
"It certainly not a natural comparison," Wolfers said. "I've never seen it made before. It's not one that a macroeconomist would make. They're not comparable."
That's not just because lower unemployment is better, while higher GDP is preferable.
The unemployment rate is a monthly reading on the percentage of people in the labor force who are looking for work. It is a snapshot of a current condition.
GDP is a reading of the output of the overall economy. When economists talk about GDP growth, they're not talking about a snapshot of a current condition. They are measuring the change compared with a year earlier. Quarterly GDP growth is also adjusted to come up with the annual rate.
White House economist Kevin Hassett on Monday fact-checked a seemingly extraordinary claim about the country's GDP growth rate overtaking the unemployment rate for the first time in 100 years.
The only catch ... the claim was made by his boss, President Trump.
"So I can tell you what is true," Hassett, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers said from the podium of the White House briefing room in response to a question about Trump's tweet from Monday morning. "What is true is that it's the highest in 10 years. And at some point, somebody probably conveyed it to him, adding a zero to that, and they shouldn't have done that."
“I'm not the chairman of the Council of Twitter Advisers," Hassett said about the tweet.
Earlier in the day, Trump made the claim on Twitter that "The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!"
The Gross Domestic Product rate and the unemployment rate both measure important -– but separate and unique-- rates of change for the economy. The GDP is the rate of the entire economic output for the United States and it’s used to measure, on a quarterly basis, the overall health of the economy. The GDP rate Trump's tweet refers to is for the second quarter of 2018 -- and while that rate might continue the for the rest of the year it's not a sure thing by any means.
The unemployment rate, meanwhile, which comes out each month, is the percentage of unemployed people out of the entire labor force. While the two rates are related in the sense they're indicators of how well the economy is doing, it’s like comparing apples and oranges.
Still, the last time the GDP was higher than the unemployment rate was in 2006, when President Bush was in the Oval Office, and since the government began tracking economic numbers in the 1940s, the GDP has been higher than the unemployment rate dozens of times, according to economic data tools from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Hassett denied that his presence at Monday's White House press briefing, the first in 19 days, was because former President Obama claimed on Friday that the Trump administration inherited an economic recovery spurred by his presidency. Standing at the podium with charts marked in blue, for the time when Obama was in office, and red, when Trump came to office, Hassett touted economic growth under the Trump administration.
His briefing, Hassett said, was not in reaction to Obama and had been in the works for weeks.
“We were prepared to do this briefing a few weeks ago, and there's not in any way a timing that's related to President Obama's Friday remarks,” Hassett said.
And with regard to Obama's claim?
"I can promise you that economic historians will look back and say there was an inflection point when President Trump was elected," Hassett said.
On Friday, Obama said that the recovery started when he was in office.
“When you hear how great the economy’s doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started,” Obama said. “When you hear about this economic miracle that’s been going on, when the job numbers come out, monthly job numbers, suddenly Republicans are saying it’s a miracle. I have to kind of remind them, actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015 and 2016.”
In another Trump tweet Monday, he appeared to mischaracterize a comment Obama made more than two years ago, writing: “President Trump would need a magic wand to get to 4% GDP,” stated President Obama. I guess I have a magic wand ..."
Obama used the words "magic wand" on the campaign trail in June 2016 while criticizing Trump's claims that he would boost American manufacturing jobs by getting American companies to produce more goods in the U.S.
“He just says, 'Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.' Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And, usually, the answer is he doesn’t have an answer,” Obama said then.
Obama did not mention the GDP.
(CNN) The number almost hits you in the face: Less than one in three people in the new CNN-SSRS poll believe that President Donald Trump is honest and trustworthy.
Two-thirds of the country don't think you can trust this president! They don't think he is honest! That's a remarkable finding.
It's also virtually the exact same way that voters judged Trump on the question of being honest and trustworthy on November 8, 2016 -- the day he was elected president.
According to the 2016 exit poll, just 33% said Trump was honest and trustworthy while 64% said he wasn't. Trump, not surprisingly, won 94% of the vote among the people who said he was honest and trustworthy. Far more remarkably, he won 20% of the vote among people who said he wasn't. So, one in every five people who voted for Trump did not believe he was honest or trustworthy.
All of this is to say that while most politicians would see just one third of voters viewing them as honest as a political catastrophe, that number may matter less to Trump's political future than you might think. The vast preponderance of voters in the 2016 election thought he was neither honest nor trustworthy -- and he won anyway!
What that tells us is that other factors mattered more in voters' minds than Trump's truthfulness. They viewed him as a change agent in a moment in which they badly wanted to shake up the status quo. They saw him as unconventional in a moment where conventional thinking had failed them. And perhaps most importantly, they didn't trust the person Trump was running against; just 36% said Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy while 61% said she wasn't. With the whole thinking-you-can-believe-and-trust-your-president thing off the table, voters went with the candidate who seemed more likely to bring change.
It remains to be seen whether that same dynamic will hold in 2020 for Trump. What's clear is this: He has done nothing to reassure voters that he can or should be trusted. In his first 592 days in office, Trump said 4,713 things that were either misleading or outright false, according to a count maintained by The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog. That's an average of eight falsehoods or mistruths a day. EIGHT.
And it's not just minor things on which Trump is fudging the facts. He is trying to suggest that Bob Woodward's book detailing the first year of the Trump White House is a fiction while also decrying and trying to root out those within the White House walls who leaked information to Woodward. Trump initially cited a memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as the reason for his firing of former FBI Director James Comey only to acknowledge to NBC's Lester Holt that he was going to fire Comey with or without the memo because he was thinking about "this Russia thing." Trump initially said he had no idea about either the payment made by Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels or where the money came from. It turned out that the money came from Trump himself.
The record is stunning. This is a President who simply lacks concern for ensuring that what he says comports with fact. In a normal world, that would be almost immediately disqualifying for a president. But in a normal world, Donald Trump never even sniffs the presidency.
He was not punished for his lack of truthfulness during the campaign (and the exit polls suggest people were well aware of it). Does that mean that we are in some sort of post-truth political moment where people expect politicians to lie to them and, as a result, don't penalize the pols who do exactly that? Is Trump a lone exception to this rule, as he is to so many other conventional political ideas? Or was the willingness to give him a pass on, you know, telling the truth simply a moment in time -- the result of an overwhelming desire to try something different and the belief that Clinton wasn't any better?
We won't know those answers until 2020. But don't assume that simply because two thirds of voters don't trust Trump, he's a stone-cold loser in his re-election race. If being regarded as honest and trustworthy was a sine qua non for voters, Trump wouldn't have been elected in the first place.
Mulroney praises 'civilized, modest' leadership of Bush Sr. in contrast to Trump
Former PM says he had an easier time dealing with the U.S. than Trudeau's had
Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · Posted: Sep 11, 2018 5:28 PM ET | Last Updated: 6 hours ago
Former prime minister Brian Mulroney took the unusual step of comparing the leadership style of U.S. President Donald Trump to the statesmanlike leadership of former American presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush senior and Bill Clinton. (Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press)
Former prime minister Brian Mulroney lavished praise on former U.S. president George Bush senior Tuesday, saying he was a "fantastic" guy whose example offered a sharp contrast to that of the current tenant of the White House.
Mulroney also praised Trudeau for enlisting the help of former Conservative federal politicians Rona Ambrose and James Moore to present a united front on NAFTA, saying the former Harper cabinet ministers should be praised for putting their own political affiliations aside for the greater good of the country.
Mulroney employed the tactic himself when he was prime minister. He hired Simon Reisman, a Liberal who had negotiated the Canada-U.S. auto pact for former Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson, to negotiate free trade with the U.S.
"I think there are times when it's important that we set aside politics and come together as colleagues who can help the country a little bit and that's what I'm pleased to do," he said. "I have been working with Mr Trudeau for, certainly, a couple of years on this, and (Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland), who is doing an excellent job by the way."
Giving Trump a win
Mulroney said Trudeau is not the only one facing challenges in trying to renegotiate NAFTA. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, he said, is facing his own challenges.
"There's no doubt that Bob Lighthizer is dealing with a special situation down there and the American side are on a pretty short leash because of President Trump's arguments," Mulroney said.
Specifically, Mulroney suggested Lighthizer has been somewhat confined to getting Canada to compromise on supply management in the dairy sector so that Trump can deliver the win he promised to Wisconsin farmers.
"You have to be foolish not to understand that there's not going to be a deal, period, unless there's a compromise in that area, because that's what [Trump] campaigned on and it's stuck to him, he stuck with it," he said. "So if we do not find a way to accommodate some of that, then we are not going to have a deal."
'I've never seen language like this'
This isn't the first time Mulroney has been critical of the Trump administration. In the fallout from Canada's G7 summit in June, a clearly upset Trump took to Twitter to call Trudeau "dishonest" and "weak" after the prime minister said he would not be bullied by the U.S. in NAFTA talks.
That message was quickly picked up by the president's senior officials, who echoed Trump's attack on Trudeau.
"There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door," trade adviser Peter Navarro told Fox News after Trump's Twitter attack.
When asked about the comments at the time, Mulroney said he was not impressed.
"I've never seen language like this. Least of all from subordinates of the president directed at the prime minister of their greatest friend and ally," he said. "This, I've never seen before. Nor has anybody else."
又一本书？《Full Disclosure》by Stormy...