Is Trump's economic plan any good? I made this thread on

>lowering taxes
>not lowering spending
>tariffs

Seems great

>I made this thread on /pol/ but they don't know dick about fiscal policy
Neither does /biz/

But lowering taxes whilst increasing spending at a time when Interest rates are rising (thus making borrowing more expensive) as well as ripping up every trade deal you're involved in is a pretty retarded move. Not to mention tariffs as if he's intentionally trying to instigate a trade/currency war. To me, it seems he's saying anything and everything that sounds good to the masses without having a fucking clue how a president operates. He's attempting Reagonomics 2.0 whilst failing to understand why it's not going to work this time. We're in a completely different paradigm.

>>1629852
But he is going to lower spending.

>>1629865
rapid building a wall spanning the entire southern border will not be cheap, new deportation force won't be cheap, running a country wide muslim surveillance squad won't be cheap, updating our military won't be cheap. cuts to social security and medicare won't take effect for another 10 years to not affect their main voter base, tax cuts will take place almost immediately, etc.

i like some of Trump's ideas, but there's no way he's NOT going to be running a massive deficit. almost every non partisan analysis agrees.

One of the biggest things I agree with Trump is on the prioritization of climate change spending. Raising taxes is easy - but actually restructuring government spending is more of a challenge since you will have a lot of internal resistance (mostly from these fraud climate change scientists and the government organizations working with them)

The data is simply not conclusive and this is compounded by the fact that I don't give a shit. I hope we stop funding climate change research, cut back on emissions laws (on a macro scale. I can appreciate emissions restrictions on a small scale to prevent smog from accumulating in cities and reducing quality of life), and focus on true industrialization.

The West is getting cucked by the East because we are hamstringing ourselves.

>>1629865
Can you point me to anything specific he's said, I must have missed it. He's promised $1 Trillion (now $500Billion?) on Infrastructure stimulus. That, combined with huge tax cuts increases the deficit massively. So he's going to have to cut spending proportionately just to break even and then MORE on top of that to reduce net spending.

>>1629925
Not necessarily. The government could get overall more tax returns with a lower tax rate.
However, I think Trump's economic plan is a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas and pipe dreams with a few nuggets of gold in the mix. We just have to make those nuggets the focus of his presidency.

>>1629874
Mexico pays for the wall. Surveillance of terrorists is just a switch from watching law abiding citizens. We already have a deportation force.

>>1630189
>Surveillance of terrorists is just a switch from watching law abiding citizens
Terrorists are law abiding citizens until they engage in terrorism.

>>1630189
>Mexico pays for the wall.
This still hasn't been credibly explained how beyond threats and tariffs.

>>1630546
Was gonna say as well, this is just another example of Trump running his mouth without considering the implications or consequences.

>>1629863
This. Basically every mainstream economist thinks tariffs and increased deficit spending are a terrible idea.

>>1630090
>The government could get overall more tax returns with a lower tax rate.
>Trump's economic plan is a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas and pipe dreams
Yep, sounds about right.

Are there any safe investments based on the scenario of Trump being another Bush II disaster but the USA being one of the best performers long-term?

>>1630613
Boeing. Northrup Grummen, Ratheon.

>>1629874
Cheaper than couple of destroyers
It's a fuckin wall not a aircraft carrier
FFS

>>1630584
>mainstream economist
There's your problem (although I agree tariffs are a stupid idea).

>>1630591
>what is the Laffer Curve

>>1629111
Nice trips. His tax plan is a dumpster fire that'll never pass. If it does, we're all fucked. The rest of his policy isn't disastrous. Full disclosure: I voted Sanders in the primaries and Stein in the general.

>>1630653
ALWAYS LONG BOEING, MOTHERFUCKERS.

>>1629900
Why can't we just go nuclear and fund research into efficient solar and wind energy instead of intentionally relying on finite resources that factually release greenhouse gases into the air?

Tariffs are going to fuck the consumer in the short term with massive price inflation and I'm skeptical that they will create enough demand from within the US alone to be worth it but if you don't go through tariffs a business tax cut alone will not be enough to make america competitive as an export nation when you don't have to deal with OSHA/unions/western expectations for your employees etc in mexico or china. It's going to be interesting, trump is probably going to crash the global economy either way with these policies.

Really tempted to wait for the fed reserve to raise the rate and then buy into precious metal mines, the DXY can't keep going on like this and everything points to high inflation, that'll be a nice silver/gold environment.

File: Lockheed-Martin-Corporation-NYSE[1].jpg (52KB, 700x312px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 700x312px

>>1630653
>not LMT

fuck you too

f35 is shit, but if any american company breaks through renewable nuclear fusion reactions, its going to be them

and then they will be able to print their own money the'll make so much

>>1630783
But the navy serves a purpose.

From what I've gathered, his public investment plan is to bypass public spending since it would never be approved congress and to drop the tax burden for every company that decides to invest in public infrastructure

The thing is, the only profitable investment is into highways, oil pipelines and electrical grids. Everything else - local roads, bridges, water supply and sewage is well, written off. Not to mention the fact that when taxes are cut, the deficit will be that much higher.

If anyone is interested:
http://peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastructurereport.pdf

>>1630913
>Sanders
>Stein
Opinion discarded. You clearly have zero economic knowledge.

>>1630584

>America is a pathologically consumerist society
>tariffs are bad

Everyone wants to sell to us, a reasonable tariff is a cant miss idea. And if they don't want to sell, so what, we can't get plastic junk and overpriced FUBAK clothes while those slave labor countries have no income and go broke 10x faster than we would?

>>1629900
>Raising taxes is easy - but actually restructuring government spending is more of a challenge since you will have a lot of internal resistance (mostly from these fraud climate change scientists and the government organizations working with them)

But the ultimate purpose of climate change propaganda is to raise taxes (carbon tax)

>>1629111
/biz/ is worse because they'll pretend to know while giving you complete shit for advice. Why don't you look in to it yourself? I promise you that any advice you get here is going to be awful

>>1630584
Name one time an economist was right about anything. I think 1979 they were right once.
>tariffs are bad
I want this meme to die. Do you have any idea how many tariffs we have already?

>>1631651
Carbon tax would be fantastic. As long as it's world wide. Climate change is real, pollution is more real. The main problem is China is pretending to be working towards a solution using a flawed cap and trade carbon credit model. They need to come to the realization that making money and reducing carbon/pollution emissions are inversely related to eachother. Meanwhile we are actually taking steps to actively reduce our carbon footprint/pollution as a nation. China needs implement regulations and take economic hits before it's population has to wear more than just surgical masks when they go outside

>>1631646
This. Things that will not go up in price nearly a much as they would in any other country include food and steel, because USA actually can produce those things.

Other countries need us more than we need them, this is how Wal Mart is able to always be lowering their prices; they make up so much of a companies sales volume that Wal Mart can always get a GREAT DEAL.

And all the idiots say running a business doesn't constitute valuable exexutive experience. /biz truly is a more stupid board than /pol

>>1629925
>He's promised $1 Trillion

over 10 years, as everyone loves to leave out.
100B a year is not much when you have a 4 trillion dollar budget.

>>1631682

Running a business is great experience. But being good at running a business does not automatically translate into being good at running a country.

We already have a huge deficit and Trump's plans will tack on massive amounts to it. I hope he's got smart people around him to guide him through his term.

>>1631729
>But being good at running a business does not automatically translate into being good at running a country.

Cant be any worse than our last few presidents
>community organizer / CIA manchurian candidate
>literal retard
>rapist drug kingpin / OC boss
>arms dealing CIA cultist psycho
>actor
>peanut farmer
>literal retard

so what the fuck

>>1629865
Empty promises. His Republican policy folks are just going to borrow and spend like every previous administration. And cut taxes so the deficit gets even worse.

>>1631311
"Public private" is just a handout to from public to private, generally.

>>1631682
/biz truly is a more stupid board than /pol

Isn't /pol/the highest IQ board my angry friend?

>>1631772
>So many stupid braindead sub-80 IQ mongoloids on this board
>thinks repealing dodd-frank is a good idea
>knowledge of fission reactors is stuck in the 60's like every other anti-nuclear retard
>worried about being dependent on saudis when we only import 10% of oil from them and it goes down every year

>>1631784
you forgot

>unironically thinking there is going to be a actual, physical wall built

>>1630851
Usually, the mainstream is mainstream for a reason.

>1630546

Tax on remissions, withholding foreign aid to Mexico (we really only have it for leverage anyway), halting visas, redirecting funds from sanctuary cities, and finally tariffs. He's thrown out plenty of bargaining chips so far, it really would be cheaper for them to just pay for it.

>>1631464
>implying HRC or Trump is in any way better

I guess we're about to find that out, huh.

>>1629863
Hi Federal Reserve, didn't expect to see you in /biz/

>>1631784
Repeal Dodd-Frank, which makes regulatory compliance so orenous that ONLY massive national banks have any hope of actually having the staff to be within the law and make a profit.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall, separating traditional banks from investement banking and return banks to a format not likely to crash the economy every decade or so.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN12Q2WA

Tell me more about your advanced knowledge of financial regulations, my autistic amigo

>>1631311
>Congress CANNOT pass an infrastructure bill in spite of talking about it literally through two eight year presidencies
>Trump easily devises a way to get things moving, which is very likely to get congress so mad they get their ass in gear and fund things corporations won't build
REEE Trump is fucking everything up!!! It was working so well before but now we are actually going to start to rebuild the country!! No stop it's not exactly on my terms!!!

That sort of thinking is LITERALLY the reason nothing has gotten done up to this point.

>>1632184
Thank god things finally started moving. But that's not the problem now, is it?

>>1632188
It depends what you think is more important; having airports and roads that aren't so shitty they substantially slow down economic activity, or keeping an imaginary debt level, the majority of which is actually owed to American creditors, at a marginally lower number (even though it will keep growing, infrastructure spending or not).

spending is good

low taxes are good

the deficit is literally unironically good

>>1632195
I've read Reinhart & Rogoff study too and their 90% debt ceiling and weakened growth was proven to be bullshit.

But I still have a hunch this current plan will be problematic, but you have a point. I'm curious how things will develop from here on out.

>>1632221
You could take heart in the fact that so far, all predictions about Trump and the effects of his policies and ascention by the ((((experts)))) have been dead wrong. That's why economics is a soft science; they're not using data to make conclusions, they're using conclusions to imagine their data.

There will be some pain but thank god for Trump and his protectionist policies. There is a reason they were so rampant in the 19th century - they fucking work

> There are still people who think the deficit matters
> There are people who think the deficit will be repaid
> There are people who think national debt is the same as household debt
> Politicians are forced to listen to this retards
I hate this world so fucking much.

>>1632197
>the deficit is literally unironically good
what did he mean by this

make it a felony to hire an illegal....
dont allow illegals to start businesses, or get drivers license....

DONE

>>1632246
Do you hate yourself as well for being so retarded?

> There are still people who think the deficit matters
In the near-mid term, no. Long term? Yes. Or what, you think a Debt to GDP ratio above 100% is a desirable thing?
> There are people who think the deficit will be repaid
A deficit can't be repaid. You do know what a deficit is, right? Unless you meant debt then no, it will never be reapid. That doesn't mean there won't be far reaching and disastrous consquences in the future because of it.
> There are people who think national debt is the same as household debt
Explain why it is not. Spending more than your income is asking for future trouble. It's just on a much larger scale with different mechanisms and rules.
> Politicians are forced to listen to this retards
They're not. They don't. Unless it's an election year.

The only reason America can keep printing money, devaluing the Dollar and increasing the debt is the reserve currency status and the petrodollar. Once that changes, America is done. If you think endless printing of money is sustainable indefinitely then I admire your optimism. I just hope you (or any of us) are not around to witness the results.

>>1632176
>reinstate Glass
>implying literally anyone with money coming from there will allow that
>implying it'll matter if it was reinstated because the banks won't care anyway and we'd turn a blind eye
Wew lad come back to reality with us

>>1632533
>The elite will stop Trump from doing what he says he's going to do!
>and even if they don't it won't have any effect anyway because reasons!

how is junior year of high school going?

>>1632532
>the petrodollar
this meme needs to die, us dollar is backed by military superiority

>>1629111

Trump's economic plan is good as judged from the positive market reaction to his win.

>>1632617
And? That doesn't mean the petrodollar isn't a thing. Ask Gaddafi and Hussein what happens when you try to trade in anything other than the Dollar, if you're good at channeling the dead, that is. The US can't let anything happen to the Dollars hegemony or else it's game over. Russia and China are making moves away from the Dollar through various measures but the trouble is, the collapse of the Dollar takes the Global Financial system with it.

>>1630546
>>1630550
He's going to threaten them and impose tariffs on Mexican goods. There you go I've just credibly explained how it would work.

>>1632664
>Mexico decides to ban trade with America and just goes to other countries instead
>still gets a cut in drug money
>no wall built
>we have to smuggle Mexico goods illegally
>only one that gets hurt is the American Government.

>starting trade wars with our biggest economic partners
>raising tariffs to levels not high enough to bring back labor intensive manufactoring
>even if they were, there would be runaway supply push inflation
>building a wall between mexico even tho there's net zero illegal immigration for years

>>1631233
And the wall serves the purpose of letting Mexicans know they're not wanted.
>>1631909
You have to go back Pablo.

>>1632664
Trade with Mexico isn't a one way street jackass. We export to Mexico about the same as we import. Tariffs would literally be shooting ourselves on the foot.

>>1632638
>but the trouble is, the collapse of the Dollar takes the Global Financial system with it.

because you guys love hayek so much, let me tell you what he would think on the matter

>LET IT BURN

>>1632743
Don't get me wrong, I agree. We should have let it collapse in 08/09. It's inevitable and the longer we delay the more painful it will be. It's just gonna be an all round fucking horrific period to live through, however.

>>1629874
Yeah this guy sounds like an expert let's listen to him

>>1632682
But they need the advanced first world stuff we send them (along with the food) much more than we need the third world shit they send us. Do you honestly not believe the US wouldn't win that game of chicken?

>>1631729
We have a large accumulated debt. Deficits have come down and bee. Pretty low as a ratio to GDP, compared to historical numbers

>>1632052
Regrettably we'll never see how HRC'S policies will affect the U.S.

>>1630584
> increased deficit spending are a terrible idea.
No they don't. The single reason why government after government continues to borrow money heavily is that from the technocratic government encourages it. Its the most rational way of action when medium term growth has fundamentals going for it.

>>1629852
>US federal debt

who gives a shit, who's going to come and collect it? Unlike other countries it's an irrelevancy in the states.

>>1631921
Lol you clearly didn't learn a single fucking thing this election cycle hey. Didn't connect any dots regarding collusion, media and manipulation.

>>1629111
More infrastructure spending: good
Bigger deficits (in the short term): good
Tariffs: bad
Tax cuts: mixed (skewing them to the rich is bad, and they won't bring the expected long term benefits)

>>1632532
Unlike the post I'm replying to, there's nothing retarded about the one you're replying to.

It is desirable to increase the GDP, so a debt to GDP ratio over 100% might be an indication of a failure to increase the GDP much. But then again it might not. And there's nothing intrinsically bad about a debt to GDP ratio over 100%. It hasn't hurt Japan at all.

A deficit can be regarded as an increase in the debt, therefore your statement that it can't be repaid is false. But there is no need to pay off the debt, and the consequences of deficits occur immediately, not far off in the future.

National debt is unlike household debt because households have limited credit. Nations have unlimited credit, as long as they stick to borrowing the currency they print.

I'm guessing you're under the illusion that printing money causes hyperinflation. In reality, hyperinflation is caused by fixing the currency above market value then losing the ability to do so.