News The Big Holes In Trump's Policies.

[EveHarrington]

I think it's fair to say------in regards to "everyone loves him"--------that sociopaths are charming, narcissists can fool most people.

Trump is like that popular high school bully. People are morons who fall in line because everyone wants to be "in" with the cool kid!

Popularity wins hands down over intelligent thinking or doing the right thing!

 

[Justmehere]

@RussH - great input on the discussion. Even though you don't support Trump per se, I think you point out some important things and some common reasons why people do.

In the original post by the op it was inferred that Trump would impose tariffs if elected. I do pay a lot of attention to politics and I have never seen, or heard him say that.

You are right, he rarely ever does explain that his plan to do this is to impose tariffs. In the sound bites that he gets the media to play about him, it's usually something more simple. But that is indeed his plan, and he is quite consistent on this.

A few (mostly) reliable sources that spell out what he has said he will do to impose tariffs on other countries - and why:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0WQ0WG
and
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/11/trump-may-be-proven-right-on-china-tariffs-chang.html
and
Dead Link Removed

But is this what people talk about? Hardly ever. Is this what Trump tweets about? Almost never.

So you are right that the imposition of tariffs is not what Trump (typically) talks about.

What he has said is we will make better deals with the other countries.

Yeah, this is what he regularly tweets. Not that his plan is to do it via tariffs and that this will mean most of what Americans buy will jump in prices very quickly.

He is absolutely correct that the other countries, China and Mexico are kicking the US butts in trade.

This is absolutely correct. Most people who are dangerous do hold out some element of truth...and run with it. Hilter himself used the true reality that the German economy was in the crapper after WW1 and the truth that the Germans bad deals with other countries. He wanted a better situation for Germany too.

The problem with Trump is actually what attracts some people to support him: he approaches the issue like a business man. I used to think this is what we needed - and there is a place for our government to make better deals. The problem is that Trump takes it too far and wants to use tariffs to punish other countries and doesn't understand how it will destroy the US economy too. He wants to apply salesman approaches that work in the business world where your enemy isn't in charge of currency itself and nuclear weapons. Plus, China holds much of our debt, and the US currently plans to keep borrowing more and more. If we suddenly couldn't borrow from China, our trillions in debt would suddenly come due. We can't pay that debt unless we tank the dollar even further and print money like there was no tomorrow.

In business, it's not wise to seek to punish the people who hold all your debt. They won't keep lending money and thy may seek to repossess what you have in order to make good on the debts that can't be paid. In fact, China has been pulling away from the dollar and doing quite a bit of saber-rattling lately, flying close to our ships and slowing taking over small islands in our direction. This isn't because China needs to islands. This isn't because China doesn't know how to fly their planes. This isn't because Chinese currency is super valuable over the dollar (at least not yet).

It's a warning to us.

Trump wants to fight back and I'm not sure the US or Trump is emotionally or economically prepared for that battle that Trump wants to incite with China.

Furthermore, these countries were able to make cheaper goods long before the countries were devaluing their currency. Even more so, the US is devaluing our own dollar by printing money. Eventually, it's gonna hit us. It's certainly not making doing business in the US any cheaper.

As a small business a owner, I deal with why doing business in the US is so hard every damn day. It has nothing to do with tariffs and everything to do with way too much regulation. Trump hasn't issued any plan to deal with that. He wants to solidly increase regulations people like me, small business owners who employ 70 percent of Americans, have to deal with. That's gonna make it significantly harder to grow my small company.

What would make it easier? Free trade and less regulation. Make it more fair. Not seek revenge against other countries who hold all our debt.

Plus, Trump actually isn't even that good at business. Forbes did an evaluation of his net worth and figured out that Trump would be worth 30 million more if he had retired 30 years ago and thrown all his money in an unmanaged mutual fund. You or I are actually more likely to have done better than he did if we had started off with what he started off with.

Source: http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

What he has said it he will call out the countries that are artificially devaluing their own currency to keep their domestic goods at an artificially low price, to the determent of their own citizens, I might add, so that they can sell goods cheaper than American made goods.

There is a solution to this, and it's not to tank other countries. It's to make business easier in our own country. A rising tide lifts all boats....

I might also add that I am not necessarily a fan of Donald Trump, however everyone who truly knows him, speaks highly of him. He does a lot of good for a lot of people without broadcasting it. Something worth considering.

I really appreciate your thoughtful approach to considering what Trump has to say.

I agree with @EveHarrington. The fact that everyone who is close to him loves him is actually a big red flag for me. It is a positive sign for others.

Trump has explained that he tends to surround himself with yes men to make him feel better. My uncle is very much like Trump. An excellent salesperson, brilliant businessman, skilled at manipulating popular opinion, and people near him tend to love him and think he does great things for them... as long as you dry on his good side... Just like Trump, problem is that when you get on his bad side, he becomes nasty, escalatory, inflammatory and makes a lot of enemies. A lot. I believe that last thing our country needs is even more enemies. Trump does do some good for some people. He also tells large crowds of people to beat up and assault anyone who voices an opinion different than his own and has threatened/promised to destroy them. He has also threatened to destroy every single part of the first admendment.

Inciting violence against enemies doesn't bode well for the US economy, and will seriously threaten the security and freedom we have left.

Edited to add:

P.S. Sorry for my super long post. I get a little excited to actually talk through the issues about Trump with people who are not totally against him, are neutral, or are even supportive of him. I think it's an important conversation to have and I deeply respect those who are through fully considering all the pros and cons about Trump.

 

[Anarchy]

“I will call the head of Carrier and I will say, ‘I hope you enjoy your new building,’ ” Mr. Trump said last month. “‘I hope you enjoy Mexico. Here’s the story, folks: Every single air-conditioning unit that you build and send across our border — you’re going to pay a 35 percent tax on that unit.’ ”

In January, Mr. Trump proposed a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports during a meeting with the New York Times editorial board. “I would tax China on products coming in,” he said. “I would do a tariff, yes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/u...ars-economic-orthodoxy-mercantilism.html?_r=0

Are there specific qualifications that the NYT has left out of the story, which would significantly alter the meaning of the words if they were seen in their correct context?

 

[RussH]

qualifications that the NYT

Just given the NYT attempt at doing a hatchet job on Trump makes me question anything they print.

Regarding China: Several years ago Rich DeVos ran for governor of Michigan. A criticism raised against him was that he (Amway) built a factory in China, instead of producing the goods in Ada Michigan. He responded that if you want to sell goods in China, you must have a factory and produce the goods there.
I would personally like to see Trump, or any President tell China fine, but then you must produce your goods here if you want to sell them here.

I understand the negative impact that tariffs have on economies, but it is still an effective tool to make others play by the rules.

 

[Justmehere]

If the NYT is not credible (and Donald Trump himself believes they are not) then we can all hear it from Donald himself (and his response to that very same NYT article). Check out the clip of Trump below. At 2:01 Trump is point blank asked if he is open to tariffs for China, and he does a lot of salesman pitching in his answer to distract from the actual question and answer, but in the middle of that, he says "absolutely." And he expounds upon it.

China has already warned the US about how it will respond to Trump trying to counter manipulate it's currency:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/china-warns-u-s-after-trump-wins-nevada-caucus/

This is the same info from Breitbart, a media outlet that sides heavily with Trump and claims to be the most Trump supportive media outlet there is: http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ina-warns-u-s-after-trump-wins-nevada-caucus/

China hasn't taken this strong anti-US stance against other US politians who would also increase tariffs on China, but they are with the mere possibility of a Trump presidency. For example, the US has already placed a 266% tariff on steel from China. The US is already engaged in trying to manipulate the economy of China... but China isn't threatening major action against the US for that. It is threatening the US over Trump's policies. He's not wine president yet.

I think we have to ask the question why is China reacting so strongly already to Trump?

Plus, look at the auto industry. We already put a tarriff on forgein cars. American made cars are less expensive than forgein cars. However, the American auto industry is continuing to implode on itself. Why? Are tarriffs the solution?

Moderate tarriffs can indeed be a tool that almost all counties use. But extreme tarriffs are not a long term solution to economic woes. They are good at inflaming international tensions though.

if Trump does end up in the White House, I hope I am wrong and that his policies will help our country and the global economy as a whole. But right now, I haven't seen any data or evidence that makes it clear his policies have a reasonable chance of working better than any other candidate.

We can't underestimate the power of this issue of high tariffs to lead to extreme change and even war.

The issue of unreasonably high tarriffs on goods imported into the US did afterall spark the American revolution and founding of our country. We fought war with Britian over it to end unreasonably high tarriffs on foreign goods.

I hope the reinstatement of such tarriffs by our own selves on imports doesn't lead to the end of our nation.

 

[Anarchy]

Arguably, and the war of re conquest which followed southern secession (estimates for fatalities are up to about 800,000), was as much or more about the Morrill Tariff, than it was about slavery.

Although the Republican party had appeared as a third party on the issue of slavery, and had risen as the American Whigs had self destructed over the issue

There really isn't evidence in dishonest Abe's papers to suggest that he was overly concerned one way or the other about slavery. He was was certainly not sympathetic to people of African heritage in any way shape of form, and argued for their emmigration to Africa

There is very strong evidence that he was concerned to maintain the tax base for the Tarriff, which was paid overwhelmingly by the southern states which relied on imports of manufactured goods

The tarriff benefitted a few industrialists in the north east - at the expense of a vastly larger population being forced to pay more for the goods that they chose to buy.

Tarriffs, like almost all political hampering of the market, result in a widespread cost and a concentrated comparative benefit (that benefit is only comparative - everyone is actually worse off in terms of material well being),

Like any other hampering of a market, tarriffs result in a transfer of money or property rights from the politically less powerful, to the politically more powerful.

 

[Anarchy]

Comparative advantage and division of labour (why tarriffs are bad for EVERYONE)

In an imaginary world where all people were identical in their interests, intelligence, abilities, motivations, strength... all identical
and in which all land was identical, with identical plants, identical soil, climate temperatures, accessibility, slope, identical rock type beneath

In a world like that, there would not be much reason for humans to cooperate in a division of labour.

The more that people and the world we live in, differ from that imaginary world of identical humans all living in a uniform identical environment, then the more advantage there is to cooperate in a division of labour, with people concentrating on what they are good at and what their environment is good for, and exchanging for what they are not so good at, or that their environment is not so good at providing.

That cooperation allows people to be far more productive than if they were attempting to produce absolutely everything on their own in isolated self sufficeincy.

Example 1
Imagine a Crusoe, alone on an island. Crusoe might have the best brain in the world, and know how to build ships and aeroplanes from scratch.
All alone, he / she will be having to carefully weigh up how much time they spend collecting shellfish to eat, collecting firewood to cook with and building a shelter - because more time spent on one, means less time on the other. they're never going to build a ship in 10,000 years, because every day is filled with the search for food, firewood and building a shelter.

Introduce Friday, and assuming that each is bright enough to realise that the other will work better if they exchange consensually, with each feeling that they are getting something that is more valuable to them than what they gave up
rather than grudgingly doing as little as possible as a slave (incidentally, check out the "Mayflower Compact" to see how a "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" system of production and distribution worked out, and how dramatically things changed when that system was abandoned).

Then they can enjoy a higher standard of living, by each doing what they are good at, than the standard of living that they would have had if they were each living in isolated self sufficiency.

Crusoe and Friday don't even have to like each other, They only need to recognise that they will both enjoy a higher standard of material wellbeing by each concentrating on doing what they are better at, and exchanging with the other one for the things that the other one is better at.

Example 2
Imagine that your village, town or city, decides that it will impose high tarriffs on imports from outside the village/ town/city boundary
Tarriffs sufficient to ensure that local production can make a profit.

Immediately, un employment will disappear, as people try to make all of those things that were not being made there before

but what happens to availability of goods - are you in a place that can grow wine and fruit - or only wheat and potatoes?
how efficeint is an iron and steel plant that's scaled for one town's labour supply and steel requirements - what price will it be producing at,

how efficeint will the engine works, and the vehicle works be, and what cost will the two buses, five trucks, eight tractors and 50 cars that it produces by hand each year be?

a plant refining silicon and making chips and electronic components to make a few thousand computers and phones a year, just isn't going to happen at a price that anyone in the town can afford to pay, and how many apps are going to be written in that one town or city?

Everyone would be working vastly longer hours to achieve a vastly lower material standard of living. There
just are not enough people with enough skills and enough time to provide all of the goods and services that a wider division of labour would provide.

OK, the manager of the steel plant might remain, where under a wider division of labour, that plant might have closed because it couldn't compete
but that in ability to compete shows that the isolated production is less efficeint and consumes more resources - so it lowers the material standard of living for everyone, including the manager.



What about people who are not much good at anything?
The first modern exposition of "comparative advantage" appeared in a book by English Classical Economist, David Ricardo. Although it appears much more likely that it came from his secretary, James Mill.
That example looked at two countries and two products - but applies equally to two individual people

If Portugal is better at producing wine than England, and England is better at producing cloth than Portugal is, then clearly it is in their interest if Portugal concentrates on producing wine and England on producing cloth - they will both ave more material goods by each concentrating on what they are good at and trading, rather than if england tried to produce wine for itself and Portugal tried to weave its own cloth.

But what if Portugal is 5 times better at producing both wine and 2 times better at producing cloth than England; is there any reason to trade then?

Yes, there is. Portugal is so much better at producing wine, that there will be more goods produced if Portugal concentrates on producing wine where the advantage is greatest
and England produces cloth, where it's disadvantage is less.

It's the same with individual people
Imagine a doctor, who can earn seven times more as a doctor and twice as much as a receptionist than another person,
does it pay for that doctor to employ that other person as receptionist, even though the doctor is better than them at being a receptionist?

yes, because the doctor will be able to concentrate on the thing that they are most productive at.

__________________________________
We all still have un met needs - that could be better met with increased division and specialization of labour.
Tarriffs and restrictions reduce the division of labour and hence fewer of our needs can be met

subsidies next

 

[scout86]

@Anarchy , I'm going to start with an apology for not reading that very closely, more skimmed it. I hope I didn't miss any important points!

Seems to me the problem with most of that is the real nature of people. The real nature of very many people is they don't like to share. They want it ALL. They believe the rest of the world OWES it all to them. This probably applies to nations as well as individuals, in some respects. So, even though Friday would be more productive as a free individual, in real life, a percentage of Crusoe's are going think the world works better as a master/slave dynamic. A percentage of Portugal's are going to say "FU England! We don't need your stinking cloth, we do it ourselves, it's more jobs for our people!

I'm a little alarmed to realize there are probably logarithms that can predict human behavior well enough to predict THIS. :wideeyed: But the problem with all the economic theories is they sort of hinge on sanity. The idea that people make sense. That they can see what's in their best interest and act accordingly. They they DON'T actually have an inclination to cut off their nose to spit their face. My experience of the world we live in suggests that often people do exactly that.

 

[Rumors]

Fact is every four years we elect someone and at least in part there are a vast amount of people who feel that the elected are going to put the country into ruin. It really hasn't ever happened. Some have been better than others but we remain intact. Even when Killary or Chump are elected, we will survive. We have a lot of healing to do. The last 8 years have felt like the most divisive 8 years I have ever known and this country seems more divided on social issues than ever, however we remain intact.
I try not to armchair economic evaluations bc my tendencies are to align with trickle down versus Keynesian economics, however there is likely an inbetween that works as well. The current admin will likely go down in history as adding more to the debt to GDP than any other admin, however government numbers can be jacked around just like anything else so I have a hard time believing anything. Perception carries more weight in this economy than the actual numbers. If the American people perceive the economy to be doing well, they will continue to tool along and spend money. If the perception is not good they tighten up. It is what it is. Both candidates have their absolutes and neither really turns me on.

 

[scout86]

I was thinking about this yesterday. People really tend to believe "it can't happen to me/us". This time, I think we have it set up so there's a real possibility the people running the show might literally blow the place up.

As far as the divisive atmosphere goes, it's my perception that it's been around way more than 8 years.

Last, but not least, I'd love to see some evidence that "trickle down economics" actually works for anyone other than the top percentages of income earners.

 

[Justmehere]

We have been at this place in history before, just not in the US.

In this article, you can read that Hilter was very much underestimated and even as he rose in power, people thought it wouldn't be so bad then too: http://www.theatlantic.com/national...urnalists-reported-the-rise-of-hitler/254146/

"What did Americans think of Hitler when they first met him in the 1920s and 1930s? ...After the Great Depression hit, suddenly the Nazi Party became a major contender for power. Yet you had Americans meeting Hitler and saying, "This guy is a clown. He's like a caricature of himself." And a lot of them went through this whole litany about how even if Hitler got into a position of power, other German politicians would somehow be able to control him. A lot of German politicians believed this themselves."

 

[scout86]

Can't like that enough @Justmehere ! I mean, seriously, if there isn't a collection of people on this site who KNOW that unbelievably bad stuff really CAN happen, who does?