16 Nobel Prize Winning Economists Warn Trump Will Ruin Economy

[Loren Pechtel]

I attempted to read your article but failed to read anything specific as to why Trumps plans would be so much worse than Bidens. It just looks like pure political bull shit with ads popping up everywhere. The only thing your article said remotely tangible was that most people believe we are in a recession right now.....but that we really aren't. The definition of a recession used to be pretty obvious and agreed by everyone, yet since we live in the no truth virtual world now (especially government reporting and fed manipulations)you can not know whether we are in a recession or not. The only thing I know for certain about he economy is what I can observe first hand. My 401k account is doing great right now, as would be expected during while a president reality show is underway. When I eat out I notice super high prices and hardly any people at the restaurants, especially the fast food joints likes Hardy's and Windy's. My employer is slowly but surely shutting down our operations and threatening everyone with lay off during August asking us use up any unused vacation during that time. Profit sharing has been dismal for the past year or so, but before that during Trumps term we got bonus checks almost equal to our base earnings. During the pandemic we were viewed as an essential industry (steel making) and actually ran much better during pandemic than we do now.

I do agree the article is useless. However, you're solidly in denial-land in thinking that all the economic indicators are fake because they don't say what the QOP says is happening.

Your 401k is doing great because the market in general is doing great. As for eating out--hospitality has typically been pretty low wage work. Covid took enough out of the labor force that was are seeing the normal effects of such--a surge in wages. Industries that used a lot of low wage labor are in trouble.

Although your article was worthless, I have otherwise read specific differences between Trumps proposed economy and Biden proposed economy. Trump wants to eliminate income tax and replace that money lost with tariffs. According to Arthur Laffer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer Trump was the best president for the US economy ever during his career. Prevailing economic theory is that whatever gets taxed always causes less of that and that does sound reasonable to me. That should imply no income tax will cause individual productivity to thrive and people wanting to work. OTOH the tariffs will cause cheap China goods not to bought. So less Chinese crap and then less garbage that immediately breaks thrown into landfills. Logically Trumps plan will produce more productivity in the US and less cheap crap coming from China but would his plan actually do this? I don't know, and I doubt we will ever find out. Because it will never be possible to eliminate the fed income tax at this point since there are too many vested lawyers and accountants who will lose their jobs without it.

The Laffer curve sounds good to those who don't pay attention to the details. It's a Republican point of faith that we are on the right side of the peak--but in reality tax cuts increase the deficit and tax increases lower it. Note that evidence is never presented as to where we are on the curve, it's purely a matter of faith.

And note that the tariffs mean the cheap Chinese stuff isn't bought--which means the tariffs don't collect the money they supposedly would collect. And note that removing the cheap Chinese stuff from the market raises the price of what is on the market. You would see supply chain issues that make Covid look like boom times. Meanwhile, prices surge because you're now paying more for labor--but that labor would be to a large degree the labor of machines, not people.

In the final analysis I expect no difference to our economy who gets elected. Even though Trump has the best plan and vision, this means nothing since none of it will ever be accomplished. And we know this because he demonstrated 4 years of bragging but never doing anything he promised. Trump will again surround himself with the usual back stabbers and establishment (included the Democratic party)
who will ensure nothing good ever gets done.

Never doing anything?? He did a lot--in gutting the checks and balances of our system. Just look at the most recent abomination: it used to be Congress told the regulators what to do and they then figured out how to do it. Now that's gone, expect corporate misdeeds to explode.

 

[Elixir]

it used to be Congress told the regulators what to do and they then figured out how to do it.

That was so complicated. Getting Congress to tell regulators what you want them to, then making it all legal through normal process - why bother, when you can spend less than a million a year on Justice Thomas’ comfort and well being, and accomplish the same thing?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trumps proposal would simply take us back in time to what the US had from 1860 to 1913. No income tax but tariffs. A thriving industrial economy during times of lower prices for the middle class and creative inventions like the electric light bulb and airplane.

Foot, meet bullet.

You're describing the robber baron era.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OMFG! If anyone heard an explosion, it was the buried bodies of Eugene Debs and Samuel Gompers exploding in their graves. Williams Jennings Bryan's body also burst, but it was a whimper in the wind.

Do you know nothing about economics and labor of the late 19th and early 20th centuries? America grew mighty from the blood, bones, and skin of the American laborers. I mean Jebus! You want to go back to no union, blacklisting? Why not no social security, no Medicare while we're at it?! The late 19th century/ early 20th century was the left-wing populist movement to get labor the fuck out of that situation! And you are falling for a far right-wing populist movement, that doesn't give a fuck about you.

Who said anything about unions? Trumps plan is no income replaced with tariffs. We had wagon trains, horses, and other things in the 1800 that weren't related too.

Of course no unions. Because there would be no worker rights.

We just shat all over the whole regulatory system as it is and that's just the beginning for the Republicans.

 

[bilby]

Until we solve identity theft there's not much that can be done about illegals.

That's nonsense.

Instead of working under a completely fictitious identity they'll work under a stolen one.

That's slanderous nonsense.

The ones that knowingly hire illegals are small, they don't add up to all that many jobs.

And that is one of the least accurate clams in the history of the Internet. There are estimated to be over seven million non-citizens working in the USA without the lawful right to do so.

The people in the US who hire all these illegal immigrants (and that's not half a dozen scofflaws hiring a million or more apiece) know damn well that the people turning up to do back-breaking work for less than minimum wage aren't lawfully entitled to work in the US. They just don't care, as long as the labour is cheap, and the probability of being punished for employing it is close to zero.

 

[Elixir]

The people in the US who hire all these illegal immigrants (and thats not half a dozen scofflaws hiring a million or more apiece) know damn well that the people turning up to do back-breaking work for less than minimum wage aren't lawfully entitled to work in the US. They just don't care, as long as the labour is cheap, and the probability of being punished for employing it is close to zero.

Exactly. The people hiring them are Donald Trump, conservative SCOTUS justices, and run of the mill housewives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sixteen Nobel Economists Sign Letter About Risks to the U.S. Economy of a Second Trump Presidency

We the undersigned are deeply concerned about the risks of a second Trump administration for the U.S. economy. Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty. For a country like the U.S., which is embedded in deep relationships with other countries, conforming to international norms and having normal and stable relationships with other countries is also an imperative. Donald Trump and the vagaries of his actions and policies threaten this stability and the U.S.’s standing in the world. While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we all agree that Joe Biden’s economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump’s. In his first four years as President, Joe Biden signed into law major investments in the U.S. economy, including in infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and climate. Together, these investments are likely to increase productivity and economic growth while lowering long-term inflationary pressures and facilitating the clean energy transition. During Joe Biden’s presidency we have also seen a remarkably strong and equitable labor market recovery—enabled by his pandemic stimulus. An additional four years of Joe Biden’s presidency would allow him to continue supporting an inclusive U.S. economic recovery. Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast. There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets. Nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute, predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation. The outcome of this election will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come. We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.

Signed, George A. Akerlof (2001) Sir Angus Deaton (2015) Claudia Goldin (2023) Sir Oliver Hart (2016) Eric S. Maskin (2007) Daniel L. McFadden (2000) Paul R. Milgrom (2020) Roger B. Myerson (2007) Edmund S. Phelps (2006) Paul M. Romer (2018) Alvin E. Roth (2012) William F. Sharpe (1990) Robert J. Shiller (2013) Christopher A. Sims (2011) Joseph E. Stiglitz (2001) Robert B. Wilson (2020)

link

They'd probably do some math, but you wouldn't read that, like you apparently haven't read about American History.

Thank you for providing the actual letter rather than the useless article about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

New fiscal years start on October 1st. A president is sworn in in January. So for January to October, the budget from the former president is operative. Major legislation related to economics often does not take effect until months after it is passed, long past October 1st, and takes time to have an effect. But past massive deficits act as an anchor dragging down efforts for some time. One cannot erase Trumps massive debts of $7.8 trillions quickly. The GOP wants to make expiring Trump massive tax cuts permanent in 2025.

Actually, you get a better correlation between budget and president if you assign every year's outcome to whoever was president in the previous year (when the budget was made.) And whatever produces the best correlation is probably the right answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At first glance the math does not look like it adds up. But Trumps plan would add up with some tweeking to it and no individuals paying income tax as well. Just so long as corporate income taxes were left in place along with the tariffs. Why does America need more of a plutocracy than it already has? And why does America need more cheap Chinese crap? The money to run our government could and should come from the places we should want less of.....corporate monopolies and China. Not the individual citizens who seek more opportunity by living here.

Faith-based "reasoning" detected. As you say, the math doesn't add up. That's because it was never even done, it's just his mindless attempt to appeal to the masses. He's spewing shit and you're lapping it up. Just don't expect us to also be into scat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Until we solve identity theft there's not much that can be done about illegals.

That's nonsense.

What's your proposal that will actually work?

Instead of working under a completely fictitious identity they'll work under a stolen one.

That's slanderous nonsense.

Slanderous?? Who in the world am I supposedly slandering?

And it's real. Somebody worked under my mother's identity back in the 80s and the IRS was coming after her about it.

The ones that knowingly hire illegals are small, they don't add up to all that many jobs.

And that is one of the least accurate clams in the history of the Internet. There are estimated to be over seven million non-citizens working in the USA without the lawful right to do so.

Try again, your argument doesn't say what you think it says. There are three categories of illegals:

1) What you are picturing, the guys working under the table. Yes, the employers obviously know. My wife lost her favorite roast duck place because the owner ended up in jail over this. (While hiring the people under the table is rather a slap on the wrist the lying to the IRS and the like isn't.)

2) Those who work with fraudulent documents. You realize our social security cards still have absolutely no anti-counterfeit measures? And fake ID to buy booze is very much a thing--and your typical clerk has far more training and experience in detecting fraudulent ID than your typical small-company HR person. I put the woman at my former employer into brain freeze this way. At the time it was one from column A (suitable indications of identity), one from column B (suitable indications of work permission). I've used my social security card a few times in my life, I've used my passport dozens of times. Of course I provided the document that was more readily at hand. It's right there in column A and it's right there in column B. "But it doesn't have your social security number"--yeah, but note it is in column B. "But you have to have two documents"--no. Since then the form has been reworked multiple times, now I see there's a column A that lists things which are both ID and work permission (passport is right at the top of the list), or one from B (identity) and one from C (permission.)

3) If you're an independent contractor there's no document check whatsoever. You simply fill out a form, that's it.

Your 7 million number includes all of these.

 

[Toni]

Trumps proposal would simply take us back in time to what the US had from 1860 to 1913. No income tax but tariffs. A thriving industrial economy during times of lower prices for the middle class and creative inventions like the electric light bulb and airplane.

Foot, meet bullet.

You're describing the robber baron era.

Which is what Trump and his cronies want,

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I disagree. Trump doesn't actually care.

 

[bilby]

Until we solve identity theft there's not much that can be done about illegals.

That's nonsense.

What's your proposal that will actually work?

Punish employers who are found to have employees who are not permitted to work.

Don't knock it until you've tried it - I know that you believe that it wouldn't work, but basing policy on belief is stupid.

Instead of working under a completely fictitious identity they'll work under a stolen one.

That's slanderous nonsense.

Slanderous?? Who in the world am I supposedly slandering?

What, you think that your assuming that all undocumented workers will turn to identity theft at the drop of a hat diesn't slander undocumented workers as a class?

And it's real. Somebody worked under my mother's identity back in the 80s and the IRS was coming after her about it.

Oh, well, if there has been one criminal amongst a group of millions, the entire group must be criminals, obviously.

The ones that knowingly hire illegals are small, they don't add up to all that many jobs.

And that is one of the least accurate clams in the history of the Internet. There are estimated to be over seven million non-citizens working in the USA without the lawful right to do so.

Try again, your argument doesn't say what you think it says. There are three categories of illegals:

It doesn't matter a whit to my argument how many "categories" you wish to invent.

1) What you are picturing, the guys working under the table. Yes, the employers obviously know. My wife lost her favorite roast duck place because the owner ended up in jail over this. (While hiring the people under the table is rather a slap on the wrist the lying to the IRS and the like isn't.)

That's what you are picturing me picturing. It has bupkis to do with what I actually said, or what I actually think.

Also, anecdotes (even family anecdotes) aren't evidence.

2) Those who work with fraudulent documents. You realize our social security cards still have absolutely no anti-counterfeit measures? And fake ID to buy booze is very much a thing--and your typical clerk has far more training and experience in detecting fraudulent ID than your typical small-company HR person.

None of which changes the fact that the ONLY way they could not know that they are employing people without the right to work, is that they don't WANT to know.

Hiding behind 'plausible deniability' is bullshit; A clerk who sells liquor to a twelve year old with a fake ID does so not because he believes the customer to be twenty one, but because he believes that the fake ID covers his arse when he is brought to book for his actions.

I put the woman at my former employer into brain freeze this way. At the time it was one from column A (suitable indications of identity), one from column B (suitable indications of work permission). I've used my social security card a few times in my life, I've used my passport dozens of times. Of course I provided the document that was more readily at hand. It's right there in column A and it's right there in column B. "But it doesn't have your social security number"--yeah, but note it is in column B. "But you have to have two documents"--no. Since then the form has been reworked multiple times, now I see there's a column A that lists things which are both ID and work permission (passport is right at the top of the list), or one from B (identity) and one from C (permission.)

A fascinating, if irrelevant and byzantine, anecdote. Thanks so much for sharing.

3) If you're an independent contractor there's no document check whatsoever. You simply fill out a form, that's it.

Documents are a smokescreen. The employers of illegal workers know. The documents exist to give them an excuse to pretend not to know. And you and I both know this.

That a bureaucracy has been long established for the purpose of protecting illegal employers does not excuse their behaviour; If anything it is further evidence of the endemic nature of their crime.

Your 7 million number includes all of these.

It includes every single last one of them. And rightly so.

If a person is found working unlawfully, he is arrested and deported. He may also face other punishments.

If a person is found employing an unlawful worker, he suffers zero punishment of any kind.

Of course, if the worker in question has a convincing but fake set of documents, the situation is totally different. In that case, the worker is arrested and deported, and may also face other punishments; While the employer suffers zero punishment of any kind.

Until the employers face non-trivial sanction, the number of unlawfully employed persons will not fall. As soon as they do, it will fall precipitously.

And Americans will have to start paying something close to the non-slave labour cost of the productivity of these seven million plus labourers. Or they will have to pick their own crops, clean their own toilets, and mow their own lawns.

Your position, that Americans should not face punishment for breaking the law, if they can pretend to have made a cursory effort to avoid breaking the law, is quite possibly reasonable; But if so it should be applied equally to their employees. If the immigration department won't accept the worker's ID, then nor should their employer have.

If you get fined despite having done a document check, then you will learn to check more carefully next time.

 

[scombrid]

Trumps proposal would simply take us back in time to what the US had from 1860 to 1913. No income tax but tariffs. A thriving industrial economy during times of lower prices for the middle class and creative inventions like the electric light bulb and airplane.

Foot, meet bullet.

You're describing the robber baron era.

Corporations should be all powerful and provide their own “police” like the coal companies did in Appalachia during Rvonse’s specified golden era to which we should return.

Oh, and there aren’t creative inventions today?

 

[Patooka]

Punish employers who are found to have employees who are not permitted to work.

Don't knock it until you've tried it - I know that you believe that it wouldn't work, but basing policy on belief is stupid.

I'm pretty certain the Western Australian government implemented such a policy and it worked like a charm.

 

[Tigers!]

Punish employers who are found to have employees who are not permitted to work.

Don't knock it until you've tried it - I know that you believe that it wouldn't work, but basing policy on belief is stupid.

I'm pretty certain the Western Australian government implemented such a policy and it worked like a charm.

"Worked like a charm" could be a subjective impression.

 

[TomC]

Punish employers who are found to have employees who are not permitted to work.

It's really not that difficult.

Start handing out $10K fines, per illegal hiring, and you'd see huge changes to the USA immigration policy.

Tom

 

[Patooka]

Punish employers who are found to have employees who are not permitted to work.

Don't knock it until you've tried it - I know that you believe that it wouldn't work, but basing policy on belief is stupid.

I'm pretty certain the Western Australian government implemented such a policy and it worked like a charm.

"Worked like a charm" could be a subjective impression.

It was a lot more effective than what One Nation-adjacent voters could ever imagined.

 

[barbos]

When I was working on US government facility. All cleaning ladies were from Latin America, none of them spoke any english. Their supervisor was from Latin America too but he spoke english. Also, I remember one of the ladies drove Mercedes Benz SUV, which was weird. Yeah, did not speak any english. Were they legal or not I do not know, but they were working on US federal government premises.
Cleaning stuff at university, by the way, was american. And they were paid, I was told, pretty large salaries, in other words union jobs.

 

[Swammerdami]

Until we solve identity theft there's not much that can be done about illegals.

Instead of working under a completely fictitious identity they'll work under a stolen one.

Really? I remember that in the early 1990's a decree went out from Caesar Williamus that all the employees would be checked. Supposedly -- and this actually happened where I was employed -- everyone was required to present a birth certificate! (I don't remember if passport could be substituted.)

How many undocumented workers actually have valid-looking U.S. birth certificates?

The ones that knowingly hire illegals are small, they don't add up to all that many jobs.

Cite? I think most employers of very low-wage workers are either aware, or deliberately try to avoid becoming aware.