100% of Economists Disagree with Trump

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit.
Japan grew because most of their industry was bombed out in the war. We rebuilt it with more efficient equipment. The Japanese organized and muscled in on US markets because the unions had made US industry flabby and overpriced.
But the Japanese have engaged in enormous tariffs that have coddled their industries and made them uncompetitive.

Is that why, for YEARS, Japan has been the top export market for major trading countries?
We rebuilt it, yes. We were their main export and their economy is dependent on exports.
They had HIGH tariffs and selected trade. Mostly with us.
They took our products and made them cheaper and, in a lot of cases, more efficient. Including machinery equipment.
The tariffs gave them a chance to build. Which, was/is the point.

Protecting industries from competition never works to make them stronger. Protection only weakens industry. If it strengthened industry East Germany would be a powerhouse economy.

Do we really want our workers to be "competitive" with workers who make slave wages?

It isnt a question of what I want. They are competitive regardless of what you want.
You understand wage level is largely irrelevant, right? What matters is the unit cost of labor. And the US can be very competitive there.

It is a question of what WE want.

WE as a collective set our trade policy.

WE can decide if we want to have our workers in direct competition with workers who make 1.67$ an hour.

And wages are not irrelevant. Wages are one of TWO variables in calculating Unit Cost. That's pretty important.

And we can't have a middle class if to be competitive we have to pay 1.67 an hour.

You are like a liberal arguing for 15/hr min wage. The choice isnt between industrial jobs at 25/hr and jobs at 15/hr. The choice is between having industrial jobs and not having them. ANd you seem to be for not having them.

 

[Correll]

Is that why, for YEARS, Japan has been the top export market for major trading countries?
We rebuilt it, yes. We were their main export and their economy is dependent on exports.
They had HIGH tariffs and selected trade. Mostly with us.
They took our products and made them cheaper and, in a lot of cases, more efficient. Including machinery equipment.
The tariffs gave them a chance to build. Which, was/is the point.

Protecting industries from competition never works to make them stronger. Protection only weakens industry. If it strengthened industry East Germany would be a powerhouse economy.

Do we really want our workers to be "competitive" with workers who make slave wages?

It isnt a question of what I want. They are competitive regardless of what you want.
You understand wage level is largely irrelevant, right? What matters is the unit cost of labor. And the US can be very competitive there.

It is a question of what WE want.

WE as a collective set our trade policy.

WE can decide if we want to have our workers in direct competition with workers who make 1.67$ an hour.

And wages are not irrelevant. Wages are one of TWO variables in calculating Unit Cost. That's pretty important.

And we can't have a middle class if to be competitive we have to pay 1.67 an hour.

You are like a liberal arguing for 15/hr min wage. The choice isnt between industrial jobs at 25/hr and jobs at 15/hr. The choice is between having industrial jobs and not having them. ANd you seem to be for not having them.

You did not address my point that we as a collective set policy, which contradicted a point of yours.

You did not address my point about how wages ARE relevant, which contradicted a point of yours.


I do not want to see US workers trying to compete with Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour.

That is not reasonable or fair competition.

 

[The Rabbi]

Protecting industries from competition never works to make them stronger. Protection only weakens industry. If it strengthened industry East Germany would be a powerhouse economy.

Do we really want our workers to be "competitive" with workers who make slave wages?

It isnt a question of what I want. They are competitive regardless of what you want.
You understand wage level is largely irrelevant, right? What matters is the unit cost of labor. And the US can be very competitive there.

It is a question of what WE want.

WE as a collective set our trade policy.

WE can decide if we want to have our workers in direct competition with workers who make 1.67$ an hour.

And wages are not irrelevant. Wages are one of TWO variables in calculating Unit Cost. That's pretty important.

And we can't have a middle class if to be competitive we have to pay 1.67 an hour.

You are like a liberal arguing for 15/hr min wage. The choice isnt between industrial jobs at 25/hr and jobs at 15/hr. The choice is between having industrial jobs and not having them. ANd you seem to be for not having them.

You did not address my point that we as a collective set policy, which contradicted a point of yours.

You did not address my point about how wages ARE relevant, which contradicted a point of yours.


I do not want to see US workers trying to compete with Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour.

That is not reasonable or fair competition.

OK. This is not a collective. Collectives existed in the Soviet Union, not here. This is a Republic. We set policy through the political process.
I didnt say wages are not relevant at all. But they arent terribly relevant because unit cost of labor is the relevant statistic.
Workers will compete with third world peasants regardless of what you want. That they make 1.67/hr is irrelevant. Because the unit cost of labor is the only relevant statistic.

 

[Synthaholic]

the unions had made US industry flabby and overpriced

 

[TNHarley]

the unions had made US industry flabby and overpriced

maybe you can refute it? I know I couldn't.. truth is truth..
Tell me how paying someone 25 bucks an hour to stand in a line and screw a screw into a headliner isn't overpriced?

 

[The Rabbi]

the unions had made US industry flabby and overpriced

People laugh at what they dont understand. You laugh an awful lot.

 

[Synthaholic]

Please allow me to KILL this thread once and for all, putting us all out of our painful miseries:

'100% of Economists Disagree with Trump'

"In an interview with Breitbart News, conservative economist Larry Kudlow stated that he believed Donald Trump’s tax plan is “spot on.”
- MAJOR ECONOMIST ON TRUMP TAX PLAN: He’s spot on!

No matter what you think of Kudlow, no matter if you disagree with him or not....

The FACT remains that the OP declared ALL - 100% of Economists - disagree with Trump.

FAIL! WRONG! Kudlow, an Economist agrees with him. Now we can all move on with our lives and disregard this PROVEN FALSE Liberal accusation!

Next...

No one takes Kudlow seriously on economics. He's totally in the pocket of Club For Growth and the 1%.

It would be like taking Mark Levin or Sean Hannity seriously on politics. Only the know-nothing wingnuts, low information voters, and bitter clingers do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please allow me to KILL this thread once and for all, putting us all out of our painful miseries:

'100% of Economists Disagree with Trump'

"In an interview with Breitbart News, conservative economist Larry Kudlow stated that he believed Donald Trump’s tax plan is “spot on.”
- MAJOR ECONOMIST ON TRUMP TAX PLAN: He’s spot on!

No matter what you think of Kudlow, no matter if you disagree with him or not....

The FACT remains that the OP declared ALL - 100% of Economists - disagree with Trump.

FAIL! WRONG! Kudlow, an Economist agrees with him. Now we can all move on with our lives and disregard this PROVEN FALSE Liberal accusation!

Next...

No one takes Kudlow seriously on economics. He's totally in the pocket of Club For Growth and the 1%.

It would be like taking Mark Levin or Sean Hannity seriously on politics. Only the know-nothing wingnuts, low information voters, and bitter clingers do.

Really? No one takes Kudlow seriously? Is that why he's never quoted anywhere and is working at McDonalds to make ends meet?

 

[healthmyths]

According to the below table, from this site: Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with China
Trump's tax of 45% would be about $200 billion on the $443 billion imported.
That tax would if given as a tax credit to all the little people... i.e. "middle class" or 87% of 117 million American households according to this:
of $1,707 per household... or as Trump would do as I would do...
Set up the Venture Capital Insurance Fund (VCIC) with half the $443 billion. (Similar to FDIC!).
VCIC would then provide guaranteed protection of investment in new ventures for ONLY those Middle class people on $20,000 investment or less.
Thus guaranteeing the small "middle class" investor would NEVER lose their principal BUT could gain on the winners.
With that guarantee and with that $200 billion a year in new capital for new ventures, many of those "little people" middle class would have the opportunity
to accumulate wealth OR better yet be the entrepreneur that secured the VC and start their own business!

http://factually.gizmodo.com/87-percent-of-americans-call-themselves-some-version-of-1697524227

 

[Dovahkiin]

Donald Trump is doing something great.. He is helping people recognize the uninformed and blatant idiots in this country.

The people at his rallies?

Indeed.

 

[Synthaholic]

Please allow me to KILL this thread once and for all, putting us all out of our painful miseries:

'100% of Economists Disagree with Trump'

"In an interview with Breitbart News, conservative economist Larry Kudlow stated that he believed Donald Trump’s tax plan is “spot on.”
- MAJOR ECONOMIST ON TRUMP TAX PLAN: He’s spot on!

No matter what you think of Kudlow, no matter if you disagree with him or not....

The FACT remains that the OP declared ALL - 100% of Economists - disagree with Trump.

FAIL! WRONG! Kudlow, an Economist agrees with him. Now we can all move on with our lives and disregard this PROVEN FALSE Liberal accusation!

Next...

No one takes Kudlow seriously on economics. He's totally in the pocket of Club For Growth and the 1%.

It would be like taking Mark Levin or Sean Hannity seriously on politics. Only the know-nothing wingnuts, low information voters, and bitter clingers do.

Really? No one takes Kudlow seriously? Is that why he's never quoted anywhere and is working at McDonalds to make ends meet?

Isn't he the only one at CNBC who doesn't think Trump's plan is a joke?

 

[The Rabbi]

Please allow me to KILL this thread once and for all, putting us all out of our painful miseries:

'100% of Economists Disagree with Trump'

"In an interview with Breitbart News, conservative economist Larry Kudlow stated that he believed Donald Trump’s tax plan is “spot on.”
- MAJOR ECONOMIST ON TRUMP TAX PLAN: He’s spot on!

No matter what you think of Kudlow, no matter if you disagree with him or not....

The FACT remains that the OP declared ALL - 100% of Economists - disagree with Trump.

FAIL! WRONG! Kudlow, an Economist agrees with him. Now we can all move on with our lives and disregard this PROVEN FALSE Liberal accusation!

Next...

No one takes Kudlow seriously on economics. He's totally in the pocket of Club For Growth and the 1%.

It would be like taking Mark Levin or Sean Hannity seriously on politics. Only the know-nothing wingnuts, low information voters, and bitter clingers do.

Really? No one takes Kudlow seriously? Is that why he's never quoted anywhere and is working at McDonalds to make ends meet?

Isn't he the only one at CNBC who doesn't think Trump's plan is a joke?

Thats wrong.

 

[healthmyths]

Please allow me to KILL this thread once and for all, putting us all out of our painful miseries:

'100% of Economists Disagree with Trump'

"In an interview with Breitbart News, conservative economist Larry Kudlow stated that he believed Donald Trump’s tax plan is “spot on.”
- MAJOR ECONOMIST ON TRUMP TAX PLAN: He’s spot on!

No matter what you think of Kudlow, no matter if you disagree with him or not....

The FACT remains that the OP declared ALL - 100% of Economists - disagree with Trump.

FAIL! WRONG! Kudlow, an Economist agrees with him. Now we can all move on with our lives and disregard this PROVEN FALSE Liberal accusation!

Next...

No one takes Kudlow seriously on economics. He's totally in the pocket of Club For Growth and the 1%.

It would be like taking Mark Levin or Sean Hannity seriously on politics. Only the know-nothing wingnuts, low information voters, and bitter clingers do.

Really? No one takes Kudlow seriously? Is that why he's never quoted anywhere and is working at McDonalds to make ends meet?

Isn't he the only one at CNBC who doesn't think Trump's plan is a joke?

Thats wrong.

Address the issue please. There never were 100% of "economists" as the misleading title states.
There never was a discussion of Trump's 45% as the title indicates.
There never were any questions related to anything Trump has said!

 

[bendog]

100% of economists in a University of Chicago poll is not likely equal to 100% of economists, as your header states.

In fact, even those polled who answered did not equal 100% of those polled.

Ummmm, guess who came from the U of Chi economics program?

 

[Synthaholic]

Please allow me to KILL this thread once and for all, putting us all out of our painful miseries:

'100% of Economists Disagree with Trump'

"In an interview with Breitbart News, conservative economist Larry Kudlow stated that he believed Donald Trump’s tax plan is “spot on.”
- MAJOR ECONOMIST ON TRUMP TAX PLAN: He’s spot on!

No matter what you think of Kudlow, no matter if you disagree with him or not....

The FACT remains that the OP declared ALL - 100% of Economists - disagree with Trump.

FAIL! WRONG! Kudlow, an Economist agrees with him. Now we can all move on with our lives and disregard this PROVEN FALSE Liberal accusation!

Next...

No one takes Kudlow seriously on economics. He's totally in the pocket of Club For Growth and the 1%.

It would be like taking Mark Levin or Sean Hannity seriously on politics. Only the know-nothing wingnuts, low information voters, and bitter clingers do.

Really? No one takes Kudlow seriously? Is that why he's never quoted anywhere and is working at McDonalds to make ends meet?

Isn't he the only one at CNBC who doesn't think Trump's plan is a joke?

Thats wrong.

Who else at CNBC supports Trump's tax plan?

 

[Correll]

Do we really want our workers to be "competitive" with workers who make slave wages?

It isnt a question of what I want. They are competitive regardless of what you want.
You understand wage level is largely irrelevant, right? What matters is the unit cost of labor. And the US can be very competitive there.

It is a question of what WE want.

WE as a collective set our trade policy.

WE can decide if we want to have our workers in direct competition with workers who make 1.67$ an hour.

And wages are not irrelevant. Wages are one of TWO variables in calculating Unit Cost. That's pretty important.

And we can't have a middle class if to be competitive we have to pay 1.67 an hour.

You are like a liberal arguing for 15/hr min wage. The choice isnt between industrial jobs at 25/hr and jobs at 15/hr. The choice is between having industrial jobs and not having them. ANd you seem to be for not having them.

You did not address my point that we as a collective set policy, which contradicted a point of yours.

You did not address my point about how wages ARE relevant, which contradicted a point of yours.


I do not want to see US workers trying to compete with Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour.

That is not reasonable or fair competition.

OK. This is not a collective. Collectives existed in the Soviet Union, not here. This is a Republic. We set policy through the political process.
I didnt say wages are not relevant at all. But they arent terribly relevant because unit cost of labor is the relevant statistic.
Workers will compete with third world peasants regardless of what you want. That they make 1.67/hr is irrelevant. Because the unit cost of labor is the only relevant statistic.

I only used "collective" as in We the People set policy. And we do. Your claim that we don't is incorrect.

First World Workers do NOT have to compete, and lose to Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour, unless We, The People choose to though the Trade Policy we set though the Political Process.

And though American workers are very productive relative to Third World Peasants, you can not pretend that the fact that our competitors are willing to work for less than one tenth was is a fairly meager wage in a First World Society is not an enormous and unfair advantage.

Well, you can. And we have. And that's why our Middle Class and Working Class have seen wage stagnation for generations.

It is time for a new policy.

 

[browsing deer]

economists disagree with Bernie for the same reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

It isnt a question of what I want. They are competitive regardless of what you want.
You understand wage level is largely irrelevant, right? What matters is the unit cost of labor. And the US can be very competitive there.

It is a question of what WE want.

WE as a collective set our trade policy.

WE can decide if we want to have our workers in direct competition with workers who make 1.67$ an hour.

And wages are not irrelevant. Wages are one of TWO variables in calculating Unit Cost. That's pretty important.

And we can't have a middle class if to be competitive we have to pay 1.67 an hour.

You are like a liberal arguing for 15/hr min wage. The choice isnt between industrial jobs at 25/hr and jobs at 15/hr. The choice is between having industrial jobs and not having them. ANd you seem to be for not having them.

You did not address my point that we as a collective set policy, which contradicted a point of yours.

You did not address my point about how wages ARE relevant, which contradicted a point of yours.


I do not want to see US workers trying to compete with Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour.

That is not reasonable or fair competition.

OK. This is not a collective. Collectives existed in the Soviet Union, not here. This is a Republic. We set policy through the political process.
I didnt say wages are not relevant at all. But they arent terribly relevant because unit cost of labor is the relevant statistic.
Workers will compete with third world peasants regardless of what you want. That they make 1.67/hr is irrelevant. Because the unit cost of labor is the only relevant statistic.

I only used "collective" as in We the People set policy. And we do. Your claim that we don't is incorrect.

First World Workers do NOT have to compete, and lose to Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour, unless We, The People choose to though the Trade Policy we set though the Political Process.

And though American workers are very productive relative to Third World Peasants, you can not pretend that the fact that our competitors are willing to work for less than one tenth was is a fairly meager wage in a First World Society is not an enormous and unfair advantage.

Well, you can. And we have. And that's why our Middle Class and Working Class have seen wage stagnation for generations.

It is time for a new policy.

No, my claim is we are not a collective. I can't help it if you are inarticulate.
We always compete. We export products. We compete with others in those export markets. We can shut out foreign competition and the result will be, as it always is, stagnating industries, higher inflation, lower standards of living. No country has ever been able to tariff themselves to prosperity.
Our competitors (at least you acknowledge they are competitors) have disadvantages as well as advantages. Yes they have a lower per hour wage rate. But they frequently have a higher labor unit cost rate, which is the critical number.
Wages have not stagnated. That is a liberal meme. Look at levels of consumption for a better proxy of living standard and ours has gone way up, certainly over generations.

 

[Correll]

It is a question of what WE want.

WE as a collective set our trade policy.

WE can decide if we want to have our workers in direct competition with workers who make 1.67$ an hour.

And wages are not irrelevant. Wages are one of TWO variables in calculating Unit Cost. That's pretty important.

And we can't have a middle class if to be competitive we have to pay 1.67 an hour.

You are like a liberal arguing for 15/hr min wage. The choice isnt between industrial jobs at 25/hr and jobs at 15/hr. The choice is between having industrial jobs and not having them. ANd you seem to be for not having them.

You did not address my point that we as a collective set policy, which contradicted a point of yours.

You did not address my point about how wages ARE relevant, which contradicted a point of yours.


I do not want to see US workers trying to compete with Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour.

That is not reasonable or fair competition.

OK. This is not a collective. Collectives existed in the Soviet Union, not here. This is a Republic. We set policy through the political process.
I didnt say wages are not relevant at all. But they arent terribly relevant because unit cost of labor is the relevant statistic.
Workers will compete with third world peasants regardless of what you want. That they make 1.67/hr is irrelevant. Because the unit cost of labor is the only relevant statistic.

I only used "collective" as in We the People set policy. And we do. Your claim that we don't is incorrect.

First World Workers do NOT have to compete, and lose to Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour, unless We, The People choose to though the Trade Policy we set though the Political Process.

And though American workers are very productive relative to Third World Peasants, you can not pretend that the fact that our competitors are willing to work for less than one tenth was is a fairly meager wage in a First World Society is not an enormous and unfair advantage.

Well, you can. And we have. And that's why our Middle Class and Working Class have seen wage stagnation for generations.

It is time for a new policy.

No, my claim is we are not a collective. I can't help it if you are inarticulate.
We always compete. We export products. We compete with others in those export markets. We can shut out foreign competition and the result will be, as it always is, stagnating industries, higher inflation, lower standards of living. No country has ever been able to tariff themselves to prosperity.
Our competitors (at least you acknowledge they are competitors) have disadvantages as well as advantages. Yes they have a lower per hour wage rate. But they frequently have a higher labor unit cost rate, which is the critical number.
Wages have not stagnated. That is a liberal meme. Look at levels of consumption for a better proxy of living standard and ours has gone way up, certainly over generations.

We as a GROUP get to set policy and thus decide if we want to compete or not.

My understanding of history is that we were quite protectionist during our period of rapid industrialization.

Japan certainly did not have Open Markets during it's period of rapid growth.

China is certainly not practicing Free and Open and Fair Trade, now. It's behavior is more akin to Mercantilism.


Link to support your "Levels of Consumption" claim.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are like a liberal arguing for 15/hr min wage. The choice isnt between industrial jobs at 25/hr and jobs at 15/hr. The choice is between having industrial jobs and not having them. ANd you seem to be for not having them.

You did not address my point that we as a collective set policy, which contradicted a point of yours.

You did not address my point about how wages ARE relevant, which contradicted a point of yours.


I do not want to see US workers trying to compete with Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour.

That is not reasonable or fair competition.

OK. This is not a collective. Collectives existed in the Soviet Union, not here. This is a Republic. We set policy through the political process.
I didnt say wages are not relevant at all. But they arent terribly relevant because unit cost of labor is the relevant statistic.
Workers will compete with third world peasants regardless of what you want. That they make 1.67/hr is irrelevant. Because the unit cost of labor is the only relevant statistic.

I only used "collective" as in We the People set policy. And we do. Your claim that we don't is incorrect.

First World Workers do NOT have to compete, and lose to Third World Peasants making 1.67$ an hour, unless We, The People choose to though the Trade Policy we set though the Political Process.

And though American workers are very productive relative to Third World Peasants, you can not pretend that the fact that our competitors are willing to work for less than one tenth was is a fairly meager wage in a First World Society is not an enormous and unfair advantage.

Well, you can. And we have. And that's why our Middle Class and Working Class have seen wage stagnation for generations.

It is time for a new policy.

No, my claim is we are not a collective. I can't help it if you are inarticulate.
We always compete. We export products. We compete with others in those export markets. We can shut out foreign competition and the result will be, as it always is, stagnating industries, higher inflation, lower standards of living. No country has ever been able to tariff themselves to prosperity.
Our competitors (at least you acknowledge they are competitors) have disadvantages as well as advantages. Yes they have a lower per hour wage rate. But they frequently have a higher labor unit cost rate, which is the critical number.
Wages have not stagnated. That is a liberal meme. Look at levels of consumption for a better proxy of living standard and ours has gone way up, certainly over generations.

We as a GROUP get to set policy and thus decide if we want to compete or not.

My understanding of history is that we were quite protectionist during our period of rapid industrialization.

Japan certainly did not have Open Markets during it's period of rapid growth.

China is certainly not practicing Free and Open and Fair Trade, now. It's behavior is more akin to Mercantilism.


Link to support your "Levels of Consumption" claim.

We do not get to decide if we compete. If we are selling merchandise we are competing. Unless you would like the US to quit exporting products.