Yes, but Trump didn't merely take credit or deflect, he used the opposite of facts to confuse issues. For example, the 42% unemployment under Obama. I had no problem with him using that stat, but he can't act like he's comparing apples to apples and then when his numbers come out, he forgets about the 42% and has no problem with the normal unemployment calculation. He also tried to imply that GDP growth under Obama was routinely negative or zero when only 2009 was negative. Then he predicted GDP growth under Trump would be 6% because if India can do it, America should be able to.

Bush and Obama might have said unemployment was higher because of the weather or whatever, but they didn't just make things up.

Dude, relax, it was an example of something that could happen (something Trump has mentioned that he could actually enact), that could actually impact the jobs number in the short term...I don't need you to cite anything.

My point is GDP and NFP are backwards looking and Trump can't own either legitimately. He can jump up and down and point to the stock market because that is forward looking.

He's from Canada, by that definition alone he is economically ignorant.

You're right. We should learn more from the brilliant economic gurus that frequent this board, as long as they are from the U.S of course.

You're welcome

Sorry, fallacy of excluded middle. Somewhere between "No effect" and "powers of divine right" lies reality (you should visit it sometime ;). You asserted an extreme position, got called on it. You compounded terrible argumentation with a logical fallacy. Why not try an ad hominum attack and go for a hat trick?

Speaking of reality, the number is a bit weak, and that is surprising. Consumer sentiment picked up right after the eelction, and spending should have risen more. This isn't Trump's fault at all (too early), but it points to some possible weakness on the horizon, given large spikes in the stock market and consumer confidence. Could be a small correction, Of course it is only one quarter, so it might all be in the noise.

The president in a vacuum has no effect on the economy. I stand by that. Reagan through Clinton bull run needed congressional tax cuts and regulations adjustment. The executive when ceded power by the legislature for regulation creation by and administration has some power at the margins but nothing material. It's all about Congress and the executive neither branch independently.

Thanks for backpedaling like mad ;).

Of course, by that exact reasoning Congress has "NO" effect on the economy, because they can only pass legislation with the President's approval (unless they override a Presidential veto, which hasn't happened since pretty much forever for major economic legislation).

The importance of Congress or the POTUS to the economy is often overstated, but you do yourself no favors with overstatements in the opposite direction.

The employment numbers will be interesting next week, not because we can blame anybody, but because last month's were very weak. Either these recent GDP numbers are small blips, or some storm clouds are gathering.

I didn't back pedal one step.

Clouds have gathered

I do not disagree.