Hundreds of prominent economists just denounced Donald Trump in an open letter to vot

Trump would be someone to ask since most, if not all of his clothing lines are made overseas, he buys steel for some of his buildings from China. Talk about being a hypocrite! He's not going to change the system because of the impact it would have on his cronies and particularly himself. He's selling the Americans an empty bag.

 

Yea, I know what it is........ I laugh at it because it's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb to tack on "new" and then pretend as if it's different.

It's like calling global warming "climate change" - same crap different name.

Once again - calling socialism "democratic" doesn't change SOCIALISM. Socialism is socialism and democracy is democracy...

Weather a socialist is elected democratically or not doesn't change the concept of democracy or socialism.

There is no (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) distinction...

People like you are hilarious trying to redefine and rename failed ideas... As if the name change is somehow going to fix the idea itself....

Indeed I do.

Keynsian Economics is a mixed and planned economy..... Capitalism is the healthy and proven economic theory, and the socialist part of Keynsian Economics is the AIDS that infects healthy capitalism slowly killing it.

Keynsian Economics will ALWAYS fail because socialism always fails.

Look at our present economy...... Is that enough justification to you??

Keynsian Economics got us where we are today..

Need I say more than that?

 

Never heard of Trump University but I've just Wiki'd it and see it was simply a "business school", and according to Don the people running it messed up.
No big deal, as a businessman he's got numerous enterprises going and some are bound to fail.
As Britain's billionnaire Lord Alan Sugar once said- "Only about 60% of my ventures succeed, but that's good enough for me "..

 

I think it's mainly a re-branding campaign that any corporation might put onto a product they are trying to push into a new market.
I don't see the distinction between New and Improved Socialism all that different from old Socialism.

 

This is your first time hearing about it? That's troubling...

That's one take, we'll find out in a few months how the court likes that interpretation.

Are they bound to commit fraud and hire slave labor in Dubai?

Trump supporters seem to have a justification or canned dismissal for every objection, does that worry you at all?

- - - Updated - - -

So when you compare Norway or Sweden to the Soviet Union in the 1950s you simply can't tell the difference?

Where's Norway's Gulag?

 

No, talk about a case in point. As I just said, it's the system. Trump and every other businessman is forced by market conditions to have crap made overseas. The system that made it more competitive to use cheap foreign labor is to blame, and Trump has said repeatedly that he is going to change that. Globalists like Killary will not, but she'll (pretend to) blame the corporations for moving jobs overseas anyway and promise to punish them in some way in order to gain favor with low-information voters who don't understand economics (typical Democrats).

 

Compare on what basis?
The common denominator is socialism but that's merely an economic model and there is no reason to think Sweden would be the authoritarian dictatorship
that the Soviet Union was based merely on that single similarity.

Having said that there is no reason to think socialism itself is magically made more appealing or overcomes it's own inherent limitations
merely because the socialism is Swedish instead of Russian.

There are none. Is Norway supposed to be identical to the old Soviet Union purely because they both use
an economic form that confiscates and redistributes the earnings of it's workers?

That seems obtuse and mistaken, in my opinion.

 

If a good is cheaper from somewhere else you import that good. That's the prudent thing to do, it's by far the healthiest thing to do economically speaking. Foreign labor is cheap therefore we should take advantage of it. To not do so is to accept a lower standard of living. Maybe you're ok with that. I'm not.

 

Businesses take advantage of that, yes. Again, that's the system they're presented with. Policies that would keep those jobs here are labelled as 'protectionist' and condemned. I see no reason for our nation to be beholden to this globalist doctrine that is bankrupting us and which has already sold out so much of our industrial capacity to a powerful foreign entity that is also somewhat hostile and may become more so in the future.

It's not clear to me how we're 'accepting a lower standard of living' if we don't use foreign sweat shops..

 

In that one sentence he gave people an excuse not to read what experts in the field have actually said. These aren't politicians who've set policy, they're academics who study how economies work. Trump dismisses these guys like he dismisses the Generals who, according to Trump, don't know as much as he does about ISIS. It's dangerous they way Trump persuades his followers to ignore those who study military operations, economics, foreign relations, science, and trust him instead. Why should we trust him? Why do people trust him? Because he's rich? It's ridiculous.

 

Look, I'll try to make this stupid simple for you: the more it costs to manufacture a good the more it costs to buy the good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/23/how-obamas-tire-tariffs-have-hurt-consumers/

"...And the cost of the stimulus is ultimately borne through the income tax, which is highly progressive, while higher consumer prices are disproportionately borne by the poor."


Read very slowly. Then read it again.

 

Norway and Sweden's largest political parties are Democratic Socialists yet there is no public ownership of the means of production, and they actually have a mixed economy. Which is pretty much the model used throughout Europe with some variance, making it very distinct from the Stalinistic interpretation of Socialism under Stalin.

You're begging the question, you're assuming the conclusion in your premise. Please provide a valid argument for this contention.

Given that conservatives tend to argue a slippery slope with Socialism that doesn't seem like an obtuse or mistaken question to ask. Individual liberty is compatible with a degree of economic equality, which is why every single western nation facilitates wealth redistribution to some degree. Or do you think any taxation which results of provisions for those in poverty as institutional theft?

What seems obtuse and mistaken in my opinion, having been educated on these matters quite a bit, is comparing modern mixed economies supported by Democratic Socialists with Totalitarian Communism after the model of Stalinism.

 

Your answers to equalizing final cost of any product made in the US, to those made else where, lays basically in regulations. If we had near zero rules, laws or demands placed on any business... from local, county, State AND THE FEDERAL (some 200 agencies), we could produce anything at half the cost.

 

You know what it is? Really? You don't seem to have demonstrated any kind of knowledge, as you conflate the matter and equate that it is equivalent to the Keynesian economics from the 50s-70s.

Tell me what makes New Keynesian economics essentially distinct from Keynesian economics, if you know what it is then this should be easy for you.

Arctic melting from Greenland will actually impact the gulf stream, causing Europe to become cooler. Not every place will warm, but the global temperature is increasing.

You don't seem to value nuance that much.

Not really, have you had any formal education on political philosophy? Would you say that the democracy supported by John Locke is the same as Jean-Jacques Rousseau?

Actually it does.

Yes, so silly of me to spend so many years in college learning about all this nonsense, I could have gotten all the information I need from Conservapedia!

Actually it is not a planned economy, though it is most compatible with a mixed economy as all western nations have today. You've literally revealed nothing noteworthy about Keynesian Economics besides the fact that you can't spell it.

I have looked at the present economy, here are some facts for you which I presented earlier in the thread.

"1. The state of "where we are" is actually rather positive, economically speaking. Our GDP growth rate just hit a two year high of 2.9%, the GDP per Capita is also higher than it was prior to the recession. Since the 2008 recession, we have also brought the unemployment rate down from 10% to 5% with median income on the rise again. Our total GDP has had sustained growth and continues to be the largest GDP in the world, even compared to the European Union. Money Supply M2 is also at an all time high, as well as did the Consumer Price Index. Literally all of the critical economic measures as of September 2016 demonstrate that we aren't actually in the dire situation Trump's misinformation campaign has been peddling."

Actually, it was Neoliberalism which did that, Keynesian economics was abandoned after Reagan took office.

 

Why are these people poor? Seems to me it's because their jobs have been exported..

 

It truly is amaZing that there ares some people who for strictly partisan reasons, choose not to believe a majority of experts.

Climate change, international trade, economic policies, international relations, etc. etc., It seems donnie and the gang's major policies all seem to be predicated on ignorance, simplistic analysis and contradiction with a large dollop of dumb to add a little vehemence to their expression.


As to the reason for poor people is that their jobs have been exported that is a ridiculously inadequate narrow rationale.
But I absolutely do understand how simplistic bumper sticker explanations rule the day in partisan politics. Try not to think too hard, and god forbid somebody does their own research to actually educate oneself to a point that at least they can formulate a somewhat informed opinion.

 

You didn't evidence anything. They didn't evidence anything, just spewed discredited, specious talking points, yet I'm supposed to argue against vague airy academic arguments that I've debunked over and over, completely and convincingly, in dozens of threads on this forum, long before you were a member here? F that.

Again, you have evidenced NOTHING, argued NOTHING, just repeated hack talking points we've seen here many times in many threads. What's embarrassing is the addlepated, deluded privilege leftists and certain others engage in here daily of trying to stand on the rickety soapbox of childishly obvious double standards in discussion.

Want to start a thread on an economic issue and make an argument? DO SO. THIS ISN'T IT, just a thread on a letter from a bunch of hackademics with an OBVIOUS axe to grind. Go walk the campus of the LSE or any other economics graduate toilet, and I'm sure you will find 99-100% support for Clinton because they need the grafty establishment to get HIRED into government, to get their hackery research funded, to get govgrants. This thread, contrary to your ERROR, is not about "economic theory" but about academic POLITICS, and as such, attacking the source is the ESSENCE of proper response.

 

You have nothing to noteworthy to add. Got it. You are quite wrong (shocking). An honest person would attack the content. You have demonstrated that you are not. You are a hypocrite.


The proper thing to do would be to attack their statements, like this one:

He has misled voters in states like Ohio and Michigan by asserting that the renegotiation
of NAFTA or the imposition of tariffs on China would substantially increase employment
in manufacturing. In fact, manufacturing’s share of employment has been declining since
the 1970s and is mostly related to automation, not trade.

You have not even engaged a single point. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

Any evidence in the above? of ANYTHING? of any claim? of course not... because leftism. It's not my job to engage broad general UNSUBSTANTIATED claims, that's a YOU problem as a proponent of such claims.

But THIS thread is about a POLITICAL letter from a bunch of academics full of generalized, specious talking points. What high level of arrogance matched to a low level of understanding would take that as an opportunity to have a discussion on particular policies? Obvious some in this thread are THAT thick and encumbered.

Want to talk about A policy issue? Start a thread on it, but we all know the purpose of this thread is to forward an appeal to authority fallacy, nothing more. Not turning out too well is it?

 

I disagree; no one forced Trump to have his products manufactured out of country; there was nothing holding from him back from having his products made in this country. If he was trying to maximize profits that is a lame excuse since he could have used American labor and still turned a profit no doubt since he claims his products are the best money can buy.

 

Nah the little digs at Don carry no real weight..
Far weightier stuff is-
1- Obama and Hillary getting 2000 US troops killed in the pointless Afgh war.
2- and giving Iran permission to build nuke plants.
3- and leaving ambassador Stevens hanging out to dry in Benghazi.
4- and turning a blind eye to Islamic publications urging muslim immigrants to set forest fires, poison reservoirs and derail trains in America.
5- and Hillary leaking classified items resulting in her being investigated by the FBI.

 

Hillary is a bad politician, in that she is bad with secrecy and is corrupt to a degree. Donald Trump has perspectives which have been determined by experts to tank the economy, which in my opinion is just another non-negotiable breach from him.

False equivalency is the error made by the selective critical thinking employed by Trump supporters. Both are bad, but only one of them is the worst candidate brought before the American people in its history, and that is Donald Trump.

 

Wealth expansion to itself and it's corporatist partners that grease it's pockets

 

Like the financiers that destroyed their own finance bsnks with leverage and got bailed out by the government, and who have been provided With ZIRP for a free carry trade since 2008, and who have had GAAP accounting procedures suspended, and who have had mark to market rules suspended, and who have had trillions of dollars in bad debt removed from their books by the FED, replaced with cash, and are still insolvent without continued FED intervention? That kind of doing?

 

Ask Draco.