https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1896774810572918987
Biden's economy was artificially propped up by fake money and fake data.
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 4, 2025
Buckle up.
surely this will be good for the economy 
That's why I put everything into Trump's very real crypto coin!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Remember when the Biden Administration redefined what a recession was when they had two consecutive quarters of GDP growth?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Except that looking back, the economists at the NBER were right to not call it a recession yet and the rule of thumb was wrong?
Explainer in 2022:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/how-do-you-define-recession-let-us-count-ways-2022-06-17/
Looking back, it's funny how many people thought there would be a recession in 2023:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How about the the hundreds of thousands of jobs they kept saying they created but didn't?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Unemployment numbers were amazing at the end of Biden's term.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They weren't given real unemployment, inflation and wage growth. A lot of that was Covid which Biden made worse but still
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Biden's economy was exceptionally good. Cope more BIPOC
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The number one issue listed in all polls was the economy and Trump won because of that.
You are a very stupid person and I have genuinely never seen you say a single funny thing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Okay and? People are stupid. Republicans are consistently measurably worse for the economy than Dems and everything Trump has been proposing was obviously economically r-slurred. If you only care about the economy and you're voting republican then sorry honey, you're r-slurred.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
borpa
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
yeah, because the median voter is literally r-slurred lmao. trump is wrecking the economy right now, consumer sentiment is lower than it was when biden was in office.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Holy shit you are more r-slurred than I thought, remember the hard-hitting tariffs haven't even been implemented yet. Remember, even if the line goes down, do NOT trust your eyes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you lost because it wasn't lmao
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We lost because 90iq Mexicans and "dissident rightoids" are too low IQ to understand what real wages mean.
And because urban mayoids were mad that their doordash prices went up.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Now you just have to explain how places like california are losing businesses/people despite being a literal paradise.
Everyone is just stupid chuds
(its because the tariffs are far preferable to every other economic policy the left has)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
This statement is just objectively false if you compare it to the world economy or other developed nations.
I know chuddies care more about feelings and lived-experiences over facts and statistics nowadays, so next time just say 'you lost because I didn't feel like it was'.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
every blue state in the union
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
To be fair, a lot of the economy is based on vibes. Stocks, for example, are strongly vibe-based.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Economists successfully predict 10 out of 3 next recessions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Or when Clinton redefined what "unemployment" was?
Or when the Department of Labor had to revise it's unemployment statistics due to a "larger than normal" abnormality while under Biden?
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/nx-s1-5084178/us-fewer-jobs-biden-initially-reported
Which also happened multiple times under him.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Without even sperging too hard about the CES, survey response rates, the uncertainty of the birth-death model etc.
This is growth of 175,000 jobs a month instead of 240,000 jobs a month
Annual revisions to nonfarm payrolls by March of each year, with the revision change in total payrolls
2017: 0.1%
2018: -0.01%
2019: -0.3%
2020: -0.1%
2021: -0.01%
2022: +0.3%
2023: -0.1%
2024: -0.4%
2025 projected: -0.5%
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmkarch.htm
Did the deep state help trump leading up to the 2020 election? -0.3% and -0.1% pre COVID when things seemed stable? Was DDR fraudulently pretending there was 500,000 more jobs than there really was???
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Democrats have to resort to writing novels to try to cover up the FACTS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
They always revise their figures, sometimes up to three years later. There's going to be some chicanery there because they're a bunch of government stooges using economics inappropriately.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yea it states that in the article.
Again
Since you seem to have issues with reading comprehension.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There's obviously going to be "larger than most" revisions because they make many revisions.
What about other "larger than most" revisions throughout the years? Shall we find them and see which presidency they correlate with?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The monthly unemployment data comes from CPS which is a fairly small sample size (60,000) and has trouble representing some household types because they don't respond too the survey. They apply weights too this data which get updated every 2 years.
The raw number is fairly meaningless and not how the data is intended too be used. It's tracking how employment is changing month too month, as the survey uses the same households for a long time errors are persistent which makes the delta more accurate.
They revise the data based on state level UI data but that takes 3-12 months after the quarter too aggregate as states suck at supplying it.
Payroll data from CES is the most accurate as it nearly all comes from systems not people but smaller companies are under represented which can cause problems with events like COVID where they are more heavily impacted.
This is why NBER and the Fed don't rely on one number.
@fedposter suck Jewish peepee.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's chicanery, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
b..b..but what about?????
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Recession is only two quarters of GDP decline if you're understanding of economics peaked in highschool.
The federal government doesn't define recessions you fricking mong. @fedposter congratulate you on continuing too be a giant r-slur.
@fedposter suck Jewish peepee.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
at no point did anyone change the defintion of recession lmao
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context