Future failed economic policy-Trumponomics

[RandomGuy]

Ack.

Dangerously ignorant is about the only way to put it.

Trump speaks to the Economist. They were not impressed.


DONALD TRUMP rules over Washington as if he were a king and the White House his court. His displays of dominance, his need to be the centre of attention and his impetuousness have a whiff of Henry VIII about them. Fortified by his belief that his extraordinary route to power is proof of the collective mediocrity of Congress, the bureaucracy and the media, he attacks any person and any idea standing in his way.

Just how much trouble that can cause was on sensational display this week, with his sacking of James Comey—only the second director of the FBI to have been kicked out. Mr Comey has made mistakes and Mr Trump was within his rights. But the president has succeeded only in drawing attention to questions about his links to Russia and his contempt for the norms designed to hold would-be kings in check.

Just as dangerous, and no less important to ordinary Americans, however, is Mr Trump’s plan for the economy. It treats orthodoxy, accuracy and consistency as if they were simply to be negotiated away in a series of earth-shattering deals. Although Trumponomics could stoke a mini-boom, it, too, poses dangers to America and the world.


His feelings about the failure of America’s trade regime (see article) show how opportunism and gut feeling tend to guide Mr Trump’s thinking. For almost half a century, he has sold himself as a master negotiator. Rubbishing the government’s dealmaking record (which he, disdainful of geopolitics, reduces to the zero-sum terms of a property transaction) is part of that shtick. He is not merely cynical, however. An outsider who clung to memories of his father’s building sites in New York’s outer boroughs long after he made it in Manhattan, Mr Trump appears not merely to understand, but to share, the unfocused resentment of globalisation, and its hoity-toity champions, harboured by many working-class Americans.
The result is an emotional and self-regarding critique of America’s imperfect but precious trade architecture that appears largely waterproofed against economic reality. Having been recently persuaded not to withdraw America from NAFTA—a bombshell he had planned to drop on the 100th day of his presidency, April 29th—Mr Trump now promises a dramatic renegotiation of its terms: “Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive!”

[RandomGuy]

Trumponomics, despite some tasty ingredients, is guilty of worse than incoherence. It also suggests a dismal lack of attention to the real causes of the economic disruption imposing itself on Mr Trump’s unhappy supporters. Automation has cost many more manufacturing jobs than competition with China. The winds of change blowing through retailing will remove far more relatively low-skilled jobs than threats aimed at Mexico could ever bring back (see article).
Mr Trump never mentions the retraining that millions of mid-career Americans will soon need. He appears to have given no thought to which new industries might replace those lost jobs. Nowhere in his programme is there consideration of the changes to welfare that a more fitfully employed workforce may require. Eyeing the past, not the future, he fetishises manufacturing jobs, which employ only 8.5% of American workers, and coal mining, though the solar industry employs two-and-a-half times as many people. Growth is good; but Trumponomics is otherwise a threadbare, retrograde and unbalanced response to America’s economic needs.

[boutons_deux]

Does anybody still think Trash is capable knowing, caring about, thinking about anything other than what increases and demonstrates his wealth and power?

But Trash is only a symptom, oligarchical America is the disease.

[RandomGuy]

E: It sounds like you’re imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?
T: Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive.

Huge?
It’s got to be. It’s got to be.

What would it look like? What would a fair NAFTA look like?
No, it’s gotta be. Otherwise we're terminating NAFTA.

What would a fair NAFTA look like?
I was all set to terminate, you know? And this wasn’t like…this wasn’t a game I was playing. I’m not playing…you know, I wasn’t playing chess or poker or anything else. This was, I was, I’d never even thought about…it’s always the best when you really feel this way. But I was…I had no thought of anything else, and these two guys will tell you, I had no thought of anything else but termination. But because of my relationship with both of them, I said, I would like to give that a try too, that’s fine. I mean, out of respect for them. It would’ve been very disrespectful to Mexico and Canada had I said, “I will not.”

But Mr President, what has to change for you not to withdraw?
We have to be able to make fair deals. Right now the United States has a 70—almost a $70bn trade deficit with Mexico. And it has about a $15bn dollar trade deficit with Canada. The timber coming in from Canada, they’ve been negotiating for 35 years. And it’s been…it’s been terrible for the United States. You know, it’s just, it’s just been terrible. They’ve never been able to make it.

Does that $70bn deficit have to come to zero to be fair?
Not necessarily. And certainly it can come over a, you know, fairly extended period of time, because I’m not looking to shock the system. But it has to become at least fair. And no, it doesn’t have to immediately go to zero. But at some point would like to get it at zero, where sometimes we can be up and sometimes they can be up.

Talk about vacuous. Ask the man for anything specific and he rambles worse than the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving.

[RandomGuy]

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan’s tax reform didn’t.
Well, it actually did. But, but it’s called priming the pump. You know, if you don’t do that, you’re never going to bring your taxes down. Now, if we get the health-care , this is why, you know a lot of people said, “Why isn’t he going with taxes first, that’s his wheelhouse?” Well, hey look, I convinced many people over the last two weeks, believe me, many Congressmen, to go with it. And they’re great people, but one of the great things about getting health care is that we will be saving, I mean anywhere from $400bn to $900bn.

[B]Mr Mnuchin: Correct.

President Trump: That all goes into tax reduction. Tremendous savings.

But beyond that it’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?
It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long. You may have two years where you’ll…you understand the expression “prime the pump”?

Yes.
We have to prime the pump.

It’s very Keynesian.
We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?
Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.
Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.

It’s…
Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.

Mr Mnuchin: And as we talked about, economic growth under the Trump administration could increase revenues as much as $2trn over the ten-year period of time. So priming the pump in the short term leads to growth.

So you would have a bigger deficit, a stimulus, to prime the pump that would lead to faster growth?
So I happen to think that 3% is low. But you can’t do it if your companies are leaving the country because taxes are too high. Now, I’m going to do something there too. If our companies leave the country, number one they’re leaving for numerous reasons but one of the big reasons is the taxes are so high. When they leave—go back to trade for a second, when they leave the country, go to a certain country wherever it may be, and they fire all their workers in the United States and on the assumption they build cars or air conditioners or whatever they’re building, and they open a plant someplace else and then they send the air conditioner or the car into our country with no tax, that’s not going to happen anymore. They’re going to have a very large tax to pay, in the vicinity of 35%.

Now when you do that, number one they're not leaving the country anyway. So we’re not leaving. I don’t know if you saw what’s happening. Ford has announced massive expansions in the United States. General Motors cancelled a big plant in Mexico and a big plant in Europe. They’re all cancelling plans because I told them, I said…I get along with them great. But I said, “Look, we don’t mind if you leave the country. You can build all you want out of country, I hope you enjoy your plant. But when you build your car, you’re going to have a 35% tax when you bring it back in. And if your numbers work, we wish you well. But that’s what you’re going to have. You’re going to have a 35% tax.”

So I mean, I have, it has, I haven’t been given massive credit for it yet, but I have been given some because I just see polls out in Michigan and different places, that really are affected by this, have been unbelievable, you know, much bigger than election day. But that’s not a tax increase, that’s no tax. In other words, all you have to do is don’t leave and you won’t have a…but we’re bringing our taxes down so low that you won’t even need the barrier because the taxes are so low, that people are going to stay.

The other thing, just in case we…I believe it could be anywhere from $4trn to $5trn outside, you know don’t forget we’ve been talking about $2.5trn for four years now. I’ve been using $2.5trn, the same number we’ve all been using for years. Well, you know, it grows. I think it…I wouldn’t be surprised if it was $5trn but, you know, we’re close. We’re letting that money come back in. And that has two barriers which you have to watch. It’s got a barrier of the tax, which we will take care of. We’re going to make it 10%. Now it’s 35%...



"I just made up this phrase about supply side economics called "priming the pump" have you heard about it?"

:bang :lmao

[boutons_deux]

"We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world."

A HUGE LIE, but that's all Repugs do, IS LIE, LIE, LIE

[baseline bum]

Talk about vacuous. Ask the man for anything specific and he rambles worse than the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving.

He is a low information voter who watches Fox News for hours a day.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Picks Ex-Banker to Regulate Wall Street


http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/JosephOtting_590.jpg

Joseph Otting, a former lieutenant of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s at OneWest Bank, has been tapped to lead a U.S. regulator that oversees more than 1,000 lenders—including Wall Street giants.

President Donald Trump plans to nominate Otting to run the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the White House said in a statement Monday evening.

If confirmed by the Senate, he will play a central role in trying to ease financial rules that the administration blames for stunting economic growth.

The appointment would mark a reversal in roles for Otting, as the OCC regulated OneWest when he was the bank’s chief executive officer.

The selection continues Trump’s predilection for filling government jobs with former finance executives, even though he routinely criticized the industry on the campaign trail.

Otting’s confirmation would give Mnuchin a key ally in changing the regulatory tone in Washington by dialing back aggressive scrutiny of banks.

OneWest was the reincarnation of failed mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp.

Mnuchin and a group of investors that included hedge fund titans George Soros and John Paulson bought the Pasadena, California-based company in 2009 through a government auction.

OneWest named Otting CEO in October 2010, with then-chairman Mnuchin praising his knowledge of the Southern California market.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trump_picks_ex-banker_to_regulate_wall_street_20170606

[boutons_deux]

Dartmouth officials clarify Trump Treasury pick isn't a grad after LYING biography

The White House has clarified that President Trump's nominee to run a U.S. regulator office didn't actually attend Dartmouth College, Bloomberg News reported Friday (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-06/trump-picks-former-banker-otting-to-regulate-wall-street-at-occ).

Joseph Otting, Trump's pick to run the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, listed a degree on his resume from the "School of Credit and Financial Management at Dartmouth College."

But that school was never affiliated with Dartmouth and no longer operates in any Dartmouth facilities.

"Joseph Otting is not a Dartmouth graduate," Dartmouth spokeswoman Diana Lawrence told New England Cable News on Wednesday.

"Dartmouth does not have a school of credit and financial management."

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/337166-trump-treasury-nominee-misrepresented-dartmouth-degree

:lol

Draining the swamp just another Trash LIE.

Repug House gutted CFPB Friday.

BigFinance soon to be totally free, no oversight, to pillage and loot America again.

It was dubya's OCC that blocked 19 states, including NY's Spitzer, before the 2008 crisis, from suing the govt to stop predatory, regulation-violating/liar's-loans lending.

[boutons_deux]

With Their Morality in the Morgue House Republicans Kill Wall Street Regulation

While the country hung on every word of James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday morning and then spent the rest of the day analyzing the Senators questions and his responses and the implications for the Trump/Russia investigation,

House Republicans were quietly stripping away protections of the momentous Dodd-Frank Act.

The Financial Choice Act passed Thursday in the House 233-186 with only one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, voting against the bill.

" to spur economic growth and increase well-paying jobs" :lol

Lisa Donner explains:

“It’s a bill that’s so harmful to vast swaths of the American public if it became law,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform.

“It would make it easier for predatory lenders to rip people off.

It would make it easier for Wall Street to keep taking $17 billion out of retirees’ pockets by repealing the fiduciary rule.

It would make it easier for big Wall Street banks to take the kind of risks in pursuit of short-term gains that go directly to the pockets of the tiny handful of people at the top that led to the financial crisis.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/11/morality-morgue-house-republicans-water-wall-street-regulations.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[Thread]

Trump President. Not Clinton.