|
03-22-2016, 06:52 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
|
Trump's economic ideas
Chinocoug, I'd love to hear your comments on this article. I'm of the opinion that the economic ideas Trump has thrown out there so far would be disastrous if implemented, which this article seems to be saying as well.
http://archive.is/MnyY2 |
03-22-2016, 11:34 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
I have nothing to add. Blinder is spot on every subject. There are serious gains to the world economy with open immigration. Just imagine if things were reversed.
|
03-23-2016, 02:29 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
|
That's what I thought. What makes him far scarier to me than any other candidate in the race is that his bad ideas tend to transcend current party lines, so it's not at all inconceivable he could get these absurd tariffs passed with a strange coalition of pro-big labor anti-trade democrats and only a few idiot republicans. The sad thing is it's his own followers who would likely be hit the hardest by a recession caused by Trump's stupid policies.
|
03-24-2016, 09:40 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Some of his working-class supporters in the protected industries may see higher wages that will more than offset the price increases. But that the country will lose on balance is, not arguable.
|
03-24-2016, 10:13 PM | #5 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
I understand his arguments but believe there are holes in some of his theories. Additionally, he comes from Princeton which promotes a distinctly neo-Keynesian based macro-economics theory. He is also biased in that he advises Hillary Clinton and will necessarily shade anything against Trump, whom I neither like nor promote nor endorse. However, an advisor to Clinton necessarily loses an element of credibility.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-24-2016, 10:28 PM | #6 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
I would ask these questions and wonder why people shouldn't consider them.
I have not studied Trump's "proposals" as he seems to be speaking out of his backside. First, shaping the size of government by limiting replacements in the bureaucracies and reshaping how government pensions are funded. Instead of defined benefit retirement packages, we should have only defined contribution. I have not studied across the board which agencies provide defined contribution instead of defined benefit. However, that liability is huge. Except in terms of the judiciary and military, defined benefit should be eliminated as a form of pension benefit. Second, I am not in favor of rounding up unlawful and undocumented workers, but I am not in favor of granting easy citizenship for the recent immigrants. The manner in enforcing would be to punish employers severely who hire undocumented workers and to punish unions who accept donations or union dues from undocumented workers. If these groups won't have an incentive to coddle them, then undocumented workers won't come here. Third, a roll back of the Obama tax hikes is in order if we can find savings through the re-shaping of government and failure to replace retirees. We need to eliminate the AMT. Fourth, elimination of too big to fail laws need to be rescinded. Fifth, cutting Medicare is not a solution. Sixth penalizing imports will negatively affect prices so I cannot accept that solution. There are probably trade treaties to be refined where the burdens can be addressed. Seventh, we need to continually retrain or upgrade our workforce. And this part is just a thought experiment as I have not worked it out in any detail. If we limited immigration through lawful means and eliminate the undocumenteds, it will affect pricing in this fashion. Some businesses will have to raise prices and some goods will rise, because we will need to replace those workers with higher priced workers, legal citizens. That is not inherently bad. We can have fuller employment in this means at a higher wage. These will pay higher taxes. The undocumenteds pay lesser taxes and lower rates. The net effect does not seem to be all bad for the economy. However, there may be holes in this thought process.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-24-2016, 11:56 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Here's something to consider. According to the most rabid anti-immigration think tanks, each illegal costs the U. S. taxpayer $10,000 a year.
Dry cleaning costs $15 if you hire an American (or even a Korean immigrant) and $2 if you hire an illegal. Say it takes an hour. That's cost savings of $13 a hour when an illegal immigrant works. Over a week that $520 a week. Over a year, that's $27,040. That's much more than what they cost taxpayers. Last edited by ChinoCoug; 03-24-2016 at 11:59 PM. |
03-24-2016, 11:58 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
|
|
03-25-2016, 02:47 AM | #9 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Unskilled labor may actually disappear through innovation and automation some day. At that point the undocumenteds become a greater hindrance to economic development. It is my argument that our economy does not need unskilled labor and we should eliminate incentives for there to be any who come seeking employment without skills.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
03-25-2016, 01:26 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
Hispanic immigration follows the business cycle closely. The market will determine the need for skilled/unskilled labor. Like BlueK, I can't understand why conservatives don't trust the market when it comes to Hispanics. There is a consensus among economists from the left and right on this. Last edited by ChinoCoug; 03-25-2016 at 01:32 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|