Whenever journalists and other Democrats want to put out a negative article on the economy when the economy looks pretty good, they can always go to Moody's and Mark Zandi.  Now Zandi is pulling numbers out of a hat to say Trump's trade war will cost 450,000 manufacturing jobs by the end of this year and 900,000 by the end of next year.

Trump's trade war has killed 300,000 jobs

Forecasting firm Moody's Analytics estimates that Trump's trade war with China has already reduced U.S. employment by 300,000 jobs, compared with likely employment levels absent the trade war. That's a combination of jobs eliminated by firms struggling with tariffs and other elements of the trade war, and jobs that would have been created but haven't because of reduced economic activity.

The firm's chief economist, Mark Zandi, told Yahoo Finance that the job toll from the trade war will hit about 450,000 by the end of the year, if there's no change in policy. By the end of 2020, the trade war will have killed 900,000 jobs, on its current course. The hardest-hit sectors are manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and retail.

Other data back up the Moody's Analytics numbers. Employers have created 1.3 million jobs so far this year, down from 1.9 million during the same period in 2018. The manufacturing sector has actually contracted, with many producers struggling with higher prices caused by Trump's tariffs. Business investment is growing by the smallest amount since late 2016.

Despite what Zandi says, exports and imports continue to be much higher than at any time during Obama's years.

Despite what Zandi and others state or imply, capital expenditure spending by private companies continues to be much higher than during Obama's years.

Maybe Rick Newman of Yahoo Finance should talk about Zandi's predictions of economic disaster if Trump was elected, as he donated to Hillary. 

His predictions in 2016 were so close.  Three point five million jobs would be lost, unemployment would be up to 7%, house prices and the stock market would collapse. 

And of course, the super-rich would be the only ones better off.  I would love to hear anyone say how the super-rich will be better off if housing prices, the economy, and the stock market collapse. 

Moody's: Trump's plans would cost 3.5 million jobs

Electing Donald Trump president would be terrible for the economy, according to a new report from Moody's Analytics.

The super rich would get richer and everyone else would be worse off, Moody's concludes. 

Just how bad would it get? The downturn under a President Trump would last longer than the Great Recession. About 3.5 million Americans would lose their jobs, unemployment would jump back to 7%, home prices would fall, and the stock market would plummet, Moody's predicts. 

"The economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump's economic proposals are adopted," writes Moody's. "It will be a difficult four years for the typical American family."

While Moody's Analytics is an independent research group, the chief economist and lead author of the report on Trump is Mark Zandi, who donated $2,700 to Hillary Clinton's campaign last year....

Moody's couldn't even spot the housing bubble.  Why would we trust anyone from Moody's who couldn't spot the elephant in the room?

2008 crisis still hangs over credit-rating firms

The big three credit-rating agencies — Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings — are still trying to repair their reputations as being a level-headed, sharp-penciled bunch following the collapse of Lehman. These agencies are roundly criticized for not only failing to warn investors of the dangers of investing in many of the mortgage-backed securities at the epicenter of the financial crisis, but benefiting by not pointing out deficiencies.

S&P is being sued by the Department of Justice over its role. Some academic financial experts say that credit-rating agencies haven't changed. But the rating agencies strongly disagree, saying they've learned from the debacle and have made meaningful adjustments to their due diligence.

"They (credit-rating agencies) understood that they were pushing the envelope on these products, but they didn't care," says John Griffin, professor of finance at the University of Texas-Austin. "They were focused on the profit they were getting from the deal."

It is truly pathetic that so many journalists are trotting out Democrat talking points on the economy to push the country into a recession, or to get the people to believe we are heading into a recession. 

The garbage predictions on the economy are as reliable as all the past and current predictions on the climate, which also have been pulled from a hat. 

Facts haven't mattered to journalists for a long time — only power for Democrats. 

If we want a recession or depression and to have the U.S. relegated to a much weaker country, we should believe the journalists, elect Democrats and get rid of fossil fuels, get rid of private health insurance, raise taxes on everyone, and raise the minimum wage to unsustainable levels. 

The wealth and income gap will be widened as the very wealthy D.C.-area will be much richer and the rest of us poorer.

Graphic credit: Pixabay.