That is quite the praise coming from a group of hardcore republicans. The is a clear message "Biden brings stability and financial markets like stability"
Also absolutely massive subsidies are flowing out of the IRA into a lot of diverse economic sectors for the purpose of fighting climate change. Estimated $1.3 trillion since it is uncapped and built largely around unit subsidies.
That is a lot of money flowing to a lot of firms. Republicans like money going to businesses.
If that number is from the CBO it's a 10 year estimate, not as big as it sounds.
And I don't think you have to decide Morgan Stanley is Republicans and Republicans like money going to businesses...Republicans voted against the IRA so that's probably incorrect. Morgan Stanley is a business and their customers are other businesses, that's one explanation.
Or, the people working at Morgan Stanley are economists and the plan makes sense to economists so they praise it, that is another explanation.
What exactly is “Bidenomics”? What are the policies he has implemented? Non American here.
The White House has an article on the subject over here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/28/bidenomics-is-working-the-presidents-plan-grows-the-economy-from-the-middle-out-and-bottom-up-not-the-top-down/
Cheers
fwiw, it is also an "attack" from Republicans who claim the economy is a disaster. The Biden admin co-opted the term - similar to what they did with the "Dark Brandon" meme.
"Morgan Stanley is crediting President Biden’s economic policies with driving an unexpected surge in the U.S. economy that is so significant that the bank was forced to make a “sizable upward revision” to its estimates for U.S. gross domestic product, CNBC reports.
As a result of these unexpected swells, Morgan Stanley now projects 1.9% GDP growth for the first half of this year. That’s nearly four times higher than the bank’s previous forecast of 0.5%."
This is the whole article for anyone to lazy to click the link.
The average annual GDP growth is typically 2-3%. '21 was -2.77% & '22 was +5.95%. IMO the impact of COVID's coming and going probably has had more economic impact than any presidential action did. I don't see how we can fairly attribute or blame Biden for the economy in light of that.
I gotta disagree with you a bit here, and I'm gonna add some context as the article is garbage (probably intentionally given WSJ's known politics).
Biden kept the economic impact of student loans from hitting us during the COVID recovery period. He also advanced the Infrastructure Bill in 2021, which is a huge investment in both jobs and local construction efforts, and which we're now beginning to see the impact of.
Here in California, Jerry Brown championed a similar infrastructure effort in California, and it paid off tremendously for us - $6.5 billion budget surplus by the end of his 2nd term.
Secondly, another piece of landmark Biden legislation, the Inflation Act, passed last August, is beginning to have an impact - we've watched month to month inflation crater in the last few months from the highs of near 7-8% we had during the winter.
In summation, in my view Biden reversed and corrected the path laid out under Trump's GOP, including averting a trade war with China in the middle of a pandemic. He also managed to completely destabilize a major geopolitical threat (Russia) with minimal impact to our economy despite their control (or threatened control of) of a significant portion of the world's oil and grain supply.
Getting up to 4x the expected GDP at 2.9% is a triumph given the last couple of years. This is what a recovery looks like. If you're gonna blame Biden for the economy, you gotta give him credit too.
I think you misunderstood my point, I wasn't say Biden has done good or bad. I'm unsure of where you got the idea that I was blaming Biden for the economy in my previous comment. My point was that we would expect to see a positive impact to the economy with COVID waning and because we can't see into the alternative reality where he did nothing we can't be sure that it was his actions that resulted in the outcome we see.
Not the commenter you're replying to, but I think they were addressing "...fairly attribute or blame Biden for the economy" with the added context to assert that it is possible to fairly attribute the economy to the administration's policy.
Or, and hear me out, I am misunderstanding what they said, and they also misinterpreted what you said, since that last sentence seems like they didn't see the "fairly attribute" part and just addressed the "blame" part of your response
Those inflation numbers have been insane. I honestly did not believe the could gracefully recover. I am still shocked by this. I also think we can absolutely attribute measure taken by this administration to have directly had impact on the success of the economy today. Even if those step are not just "don't be utterly incompetent" they have had an undeniably positive impact.
Holy shit, rich people might actually be realizing the economy depends on the rest of the people in the country?? I thought the day would never come
That last paragraph was me editorializing not the article. The actual article is only the first two paragraphs. Yes the article is only two paragraphs. Sorry I got your hopes up.
Someone wants a bailout
I'm sad Biden is getting an economic system named after him that he doesn't have much to do with just because he's president. But hey, I'll take it. Reaganomics is awful, and at least having a name for the opposite is nice. Bernienomics doesn't have the same ring to it
I don’t want to hear shit about biden until he actually sides with striking workers, or actually cancels student debt, or federally legalizes weed, or does literally anything i voted for him for.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.