Here’s the funniest thing you will read all day … economists are warning that Trump’s plan to restrict immigration and raise tariffs would be a disaster:
“Many economists say Donald Trump’s proposals — from big import tariffs to mass deportations — would hurt the very demographic that supports him in the greatest numbers: less educated voters struggling in a tepid U.S. economy.
If Trump policies actually went into effect, these economists say, prices for goods lower-income Americans depend on could soar and a depleted low-end labor force could trigger a major downturn.
Trump’s appeal rests in part on the sense that he will be a tougher negotiator with trading partners. But comparatively less attention has been given in debates and on the campaign trail to the actual substance of his economic proposals, opening a new line of attack for mainstream critics against his unconventional economic thinking.
“There is a good reason many people are upset and angry, because for many it’s been a very rough decade,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics and an adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. But if Trump’s policies were enacted it would be some form of disaster for the economy. If you force 11 million undocumented immigrants to leave in a year, you would be looking at a depression. It would not help the people he is talking to, they would be the first to go down.”
You know, Trump’s supporters would probably respond by saying that we are living through the economic disaster right now:
1.) In 1970, 61 percent of the population was middle class, but after decades of deindustrialization caused by free-trade it has shrunk to 50 percent.
2.) In 1970, 25 percent of the population was low-income and 14 percent were high-income, but now 29 percent are low-income and 21 percent are high-income. As we evolve into a Third World country like Brazil due to mass immigration, the growth is concentrated at the top and the bottom of the income scale.
3.) In 2014, the average median income for upper-income, middle-income, and lower-income households was back where it was at in 1998, 1997, and 1996 respectively. In other words, there has been no income gain over the last 20 years. Except in household debt, it is like the 21st century never happened for most Americans.
4.) The US national debt has grown from $370 million dollars in 1970 to $18.8 trillion in 2016.
5.) From 1965 to 2013, the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay grew from 20-to-1 to 296-to-1.
6.) Except in 1973 and 1975, the US has been running an annual trade deficit with foreign countries every year since 1971.
7.) After a trial of nearly 50 years since the Kennedy Round of GATT was implemented, free-trade has destroyed entire industries, offshored the production of the latest innovations like computers and smartphones, hollowed out countless cities and towns and left behind a post-apocalyptic landscape of thousands of shuttered factories.
8.) In 2016, it is amazing to think that there was once a time when a single male breadwinner could support an entire household and his wife didn’t have to work to support their families and help pay the bills.
9.) Amazingly, there was also once a time before the Civil Rights Movement when we had borders, well over 11 million illegal aliens weren’t living here, and millions more weren’t pouring in every year legally from Africa, Asia and Latin America.
10.) Believe it not, but there was once a time too when we didn’t have a refugee resettlement policy or had to put up with political correctness.
11.) In 1950, the financial sector accounted for 3 percent of US GDP and only 8 percent of overall US profits after the reforms that were passed during the Great Depression. By the 2000s, deregulation has allowed the financial sector to grow to 6.5 percent and to 30 percent of overall US profits.
12.) From 1948 to 2010, manufacturing shrunk from 30 percent of US employment to less than 10 percent.
The same economists who laughably claim that the US is approaching “full employment” while millions are on foodstamps and who were cheerleaders for NAFTA, the WTO, and the housing bubble of the 2000s and who have presided over this disaster of debt, deindustrialization, wage stagnation and decline in household income for half a century now are certain that Trump would ruin this magnificent economy they have created.
The American economy of the last 45 years has been great for Wall Street – the DJIA has more than tripled – and terrible for almost everyone else. Perhaps this is why Trump voters have quit respecting authority figures?
Quinnipiac poll has Trump over Cruz, 31 to 29, with likely Republican caucus goers:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/11/iowa-poll-finds-ted-cruz-and-donald-trump-in-tight-race/?_r=0
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2313
Economy? Or blood and soil? We could convince many whites to choose the latter within the proper framework of a just and equitable system.
Besides, with an all time historically high GDP, we can afford to take some hits and still be comfortable. But are we really sure that kicking out the illegals would leave the rest of us worse off? It could have the opposite effect.
For the economy’s sake, we need to bring in a new wave of immigrants and get as much work out of them as we can before they figure out, as the previous waves did, that welfare pays better than work in this country.
“Many economists say Donald Trump’s proposals …”
They must be Jewish economists. Jewish biologists also say that race doesn’t exist. And Jewish sexologists say that sex differences are all in the mind.
I think I read somewhere that the US has received more than a hundred million non-Whites since 1965. Every economist understands it has been a disaster for the economy, but they won’t be invited to say so in the jewsmedia.
Once the illegals are back in Mexico, Trump should use part of the saved money to fund a publicly financed pro-White TV station. It would be interesting to listen to pro-White economists, for a change.
The golden age of the economy was between 1940 to 1970 when immigration was restricted, taxes were higher, the financial system was regulated and labor unions were stronger.
Mass deportations hurt the economy? The 1950s, call your office.
High tariffs hurt the economy? A good chunk of American history, call your office. The only plausible hook that that argument can hang its hat on is Smoot-Hawley, however, the claim that S-H caused the Great Depression is a correlation-causation error. In reality, the Depression was already underway before S-H was enacted, and all S-H was was an import tax; I fail to see how an import tax would cause or exacerbate a major decade and a half long depression. The notion that S-H caused the GD is nothing more than free traders trying to retcon history for their own benefit.
I think Trump will do better even in Iowa (which is supposedly a weak state for him) than the polls suggest, because his man in Iowa, Chuck Laudner, who engineered Rick Santorum’s upset win there four years ago, is focusing heavily on people who don’t do Republican caucuses, mainly working and middle class whites in eastern Iowa, while usually, the Hawkeye Cauci are won or lost among conservative-evangelicals in western Iowa. Western Iowa is basically Nebraska, northwestern Iowa, heavily Dutch/Nederlander in ethnicity, is its own ballgame, southeastern Iowa is like middle Illinois, northeastern Iowa is an extension of Scandinavian-America Wisconsin and Minnesota. If we find out on the night of February 1 that caucus hall turnout for Republicans is higher than usual in east to southeast Iowa, then we know Laudner came through and Trump will win.
Countenance: “High tariffs hurt the economy?”
It can hurt the economy or protect the economy, depending on the circumstances. But right now, higher tariffs are needed against China. (Not against Canada).
Same thing in Australia as well. Anyone read the five pillars of Australian identity?
1 white
2 wage arbitration
….
This is a very weak attack. The anti-Trump people are running out of ammunition and are very close to surrender or being over run.
“As we evolve into a Third World country …” No me gusta Ciudad Juarez.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgfALPVnAew In Ciudad Juarez, the Main Sport Is Raping and Killing Girls
These same economists told us 2006 was a great time to buy a house, and 2000 was a great time to buy stocks.
These same economists wouldn’t listen to Markovich when he tried to warn them about Madoff.
These same economists told us there was no alternative to the Wall Street bailout, ignoring the example of Sweden’s response to the early 1990s housing crash.
They can’t explain why protectionist Germany and America surpassed free trade Britain in the late 19th century.
They can’t explain why real wages increased 1940-1970 when we had immigration restriction, nor why real wages have been flat or declining since immigration increased.
Arthur Laffer doesn’t share their pessimism.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265355-economist-gop-may-win-47-states-in-general-election
What a total crock. Nobody is buying this b.s. Deporting 12 million people who should not be here will do one thing: raise wages for the lowest paid Americans. These Wall Street bastards really have nerves of steel to spew this garbage. They will need those nerves of steel in the Federal pen where they are headed once The Donald calls the shots..
If economics works, how come all brown countries are poor, unless White people find oil under their feet and pay them a fortune for it?
“[I]t is amazing to think that there was once a time when a single male breadwinner could support an entire household and his wife didn’t have to work to support their families and help pay the bills.”
Yes—and it’s amazing to think there was a time when chocolate bars smelled like, well, chocolate. That’s something that strikes me every time I walk into a convenience store. Since I don’t know anything about the manufacture of candy, I can’t say for sure, but I often get the feeling that candy bars are no longer made of real chocolate, as they were before LBJ and his Great Society programs. It was strange to have lived through that time, from, say, 1965 to 1975, and thus to have experienced the change in America. Because I, born in 1953, was young, I had no real point of comparison, but it seemed to me that, suddenly, things were getting more expensive all the time. Little by little, things changed. Gas stations could no longer afford attendants who pumped the gas for customers—or who had sometimes washed their windshields or asked if they wanted their oil checked. Candy manufacturers, I’d be willing to bet, could no longer afford genuine ingredients and thus had to resort to artificial flavorings or scents or whatever.
No, I’ve never heard anyone mention this—about the candy bars, that is—but as I’ve said, I’m struck by it each time I walk into a convenience store and get the scent from the candy shelves. “Is that chocolate I’m smelling?” I’ll say to myself. “It doesn’t quite seem like it.”
If Trump gets in the economy will go off like a rocket heading for the far reaches of the solar system. Bet on it!
John B – cheap candy, like all kinds of “cheap” food, is larded with all kinds of chemicals designed to addict you. You can get real chocolate candy, but you have to shell out the shekels. It’s worth it. You won’t find the “good stuff” in convenience stores. You have to go to decent grocery stores, or chocolatiers. You will pay more – but you get what you pay for. It’s like champagne. I won’t touch the cheap swill. I drink certain brands. It’s expensive, but it’s worth it. I LOVE champagne!
I don’t doubt, Denise, that decent chocolates are on the market. I simply wonder whether corner-store chocolates have declined, just as gas-station service and other things have declined, post-LBJ. The declines are a sort of masked inflation. There—I’ve just coined a term: masked inflation. To avoid raising its prices, a supermarket, for instance, might reduce its number of cashiers per shift. That would cost the customers time in check-out lines, but the customers might be more tolerant of increased expenditure of their time than they would be of raised prices. What I’m suggesting is that America has become poorer, post-LBJ, in ways that a “Consumer Price Index” or some such thing does not reflect: less service at gas stations, longer waits in supermarket lines, and, yes, chocolate that’s not really chocolate. A list of such costs could probably be enlarged quite a bit.
LBJ was a crypto Jew. He consolidated Israeli supremacy over the American helots.
Jews rule America. Of COURSE everything is degrading. Demons don’t improve existence; demons destroy. Go to the Lasha Darkmoon site. Search out her tragic histories of what the Spawn of Satan did to the Ukrainian slaves. They are totally wiping them out now.
a lot of good points already – the only thing I’d add is the effect mass immigration has on housing costs. It doesn’t just reduce/stagnate wages it increases housing costs at the same time which squeezes disposable income and disposable income is the prime driver of the economy.
so mass immigration (alongside off-shoring and usury) is one of the *causes* of economic decline not a solution.
“Many economists say Donald Trump’s proposals — from big import tariffs to mass deportations — would hurt the very demographic that supports him in the greatest numbers: less educated voters struggling in a tepid U.S. economy…”
They’re obviously lying. They can’t be that stupid. If you have $400 or $500 billion dollars deficits as far as the eye can any tariffs would help US manufacturing. If you include getting rid of 40 million laborers then basic supply and demand says that labor will be in demand.
Notice CEO pay went up -to-worker pay grew from 20-to-1 to 296-to-1 yet the DOW from 1965 to present only went up 18 times. They’re overpaid. They’re also selling off the seed corn in technology transfers.
Any technology paid for or developed by the taxpayer they should have to get government approval before they use it or sell it overseas. They don’t like it they can pay for their own R&D.