The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Trump’s Economic Plan: This Isn’t Going to Work
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Will Donald Trump be good for the US economy?

The American people seem to think so. According to a recent survey taken by Gallup “Americans have relatively high expectations (of) the president-elect… Substantial majorities (upward of 60%) believe the Trump administration will improve the economy and create jobs. A slim majority (52%) say he’ll improve the healthcare system.”

Even more impressive, the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index spiked to a 93.8 -high in November, signaling a significant improvement in overall consumer attitudes about the economy.

Analysts attribute this change in outlook to the recent presidential election which showed a marked-uptick in optimism “across all income and age subgroups across the country.”

“The initial reaction of consumers to Trump’s victory was to express greater optimism about their personal finances as well as improved prospects for the national economy,” said Richard Curtin, the survey’s chief economist.

So, people are not just giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, they genuinely think their economic situation is going to get better under the new president.

The results are particularly significant when we realize that the economy not only topped the list of important issues going into the November elections, but that also (according to a survey conducted by Edison Research) “Three in five voters said the country was seriously on the wrong track and about the same number said the economy was either not good or poor. Two-thirds said their personal financial situation was either worse or the same as it was four years ago. About one in three voters said they expected life to be worse for the next generation.”

In other words, the election was a referendum on Obama’s handling of the economy, in which 60 percent of those surveyed, think was a failure. These results also suggest that, had Obama made any attempt to address wage stagnation, shrinking incomes, student debt, or widespread economic insecurity, Hillary Clinton would probably be president today. As it happens, the victory went to the anti-establishment outsider who promised a fundamental change in direction, Donald Trump.

This is particularly worth thinking about now that protests have broken out in cities across the country and liberals are accusing Trump supporters of voting for a racist. No, the majority of Trump supporters did not vote for a racist (surveys also show that a majority of these people support a way for undocumented immigrants to attain US citizenship) nor do the approve of the white nationalist movement. They voted for someone who they thought would change the economic policies that have been destructive to their interests. Trump won the election because he addressed the issues that matter to ordinary working people and refrained from such foolishness as running around with his hair on fire blaming the Russians for everything under the sky. Hillary Clinton got exactly what she deserved.

Now the question is: Can Trump deliver?

The question is not only important for the American people, but also for the Trump administration that figures its prospects for success depend largely on an economic revival. Steve Bannon, who is Trump’s chief strategist and advisor, knows that he won’t be able to build a strong, divers coalition to support his political revolution without boosting growth and improving conditions for working people. That’s why fixing the economy is Job 1.

Here’s a quote from Bannon:

“The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver…”we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years. That’s what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It’s not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about.”…

“It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.” (Ringside with Steve Bannon, Hollywood Reporter)

I don’t pretend to know anything more about Steve Bannon than I’ve read in the newspapers and on the Internet. What I do know, however, is that if he is sincere in his desire to defeat the corrupt political establishment and build a coalition that “will govern for 50 years”, he’s going to have to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic strategy. That said, I expect Trump will settle on some way to minimize the damage he has done to himself and call on congress to get more involved in the hot-button immigration issue. In other words, he’s going to have to punt if he wants to govern.

Bannon is the main architect of Trump’s economic plan, a plan that has already earned broad public support, but a plan that won’t succeed unless it is drastically changed. Here’s why:

Trump’s economic plan can be broken into three parts: Tax cuts, deregulation and fiscal stimulus.

As far as tax cuts, there are three main subsets:

1–The corporate tax rate, which Trump wants to drop from 35 percent to 15 percent.

2–A tax cut on the so-called “repatriation of funds”– which lowers the rate on roughly $2 trillion of cash that’s currently stashed overseas by uber-rich US businesses that have been evading US corporate taxes for years. Trump wants to give these tax dodgers a one-time “holiday” with a 10% penalty for companies that agree to bring their cash back to the US. Trump believes that the one-time tax break will increase business investment and employment in the US. Critics say the scheme will not work unless the economy strengthens and demand grows.

3–Trump also wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, while making modest reductions to the other brackets. Under the Trump plan, “a taxpayer who makes between $48,000 to $83,000 a year would save about $1,000 (while) people in the top 0.01%, making $3.7 million or more in a year, would receive $1 million in annual tax savings.” (USA Today)

Here’s a brief summary from economist Dean Baker:

“According to the analysis of the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, (Trump’s) tax plan will reduce revenue by more than $9 trillion (close to 4 percent of GDP) over the course of the next decade. This tax cut plan would effectively add close to $800 billion to the annual deficit when it first takes effect, with the amount increasing over time……

“According to the Tax Policy Center, more than half of Trump’s tax cuts will go to the richest one percent of the population. The richest 0.1 percent will get tax cuts that average almost $1.5 million annually. The Trump tax cut is consistent with the fundamental principle of the Republican Party, and unfortunately many Democrats, of putting as much money as possible in the pockets of the rich.” (Republican deficit hawks abandon their religion, Smirking Chimp)

As you can see, most of the benefits from the proposed tax cuts go to the extremely rich. How does that fit with Trump’s campaign promise:

“I am proposing an across-the-board income-tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans…The tax relief will be concentrated on the working and middle-class taxpayer. They will receive the biggest benefit – it won’t even be close.”

The tax cuts look like a serious betrayal of Trump’s supporters. They also look like a misguided , short-term strategy that will derail Bannon’s plan for broad coalition based on a strong economic growth and rising wages. This latest iteration of “trickle down” economics will not help him achieve that goal.

Unfortunately, the other parts of Trump’s economic plan are equally dismal. For example, Trump is determined to repeal many of the key provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, the toothless bill that Congress passed in order to prevent another financial meltdown. At present, Texas congressman, Jeb Hensarling — an outspoken critic of Dodd-Frank appears to be the frontrunner in the competition for US Treasury Secretary. Hensarling, who just last week said “Dodd-Frank was a grave mistake”, is pushing his own Wall Street-friendly Financial CHOICE act, which would replace the bill with a “pro-growth, pro-consumer” alternative” that would protect the banks from ‘growth-strangling regulation.” (Housingwire)

Is that what we really need, more laws to protect the banks?? Check out this clip from Fortune Magazine:

“Hensarling wants to put the market in charge. His view is that encouraging banks to hold lots of capital (as Dodd-Frank does) goes far enough by itself to shore up the system, making banks far safer than the law’s dense web of stress tests, complex limits on trading, and banning of mortgages and credit cards deemed “abusive” by regulators. Now that Republicans control Congress and the White House, it’s highly possible that the Hensarling manifesto, or a large part of it, will become law…

“I will not rest until Dodd-Frank is ripped out by its roots and tossed on the trash bin of history,” (Hensarling) declared in a recent speech. The centerpiece of the CHOICE act is a provision that would exempt banks from the more restrictive Dodd-Frank regulations…” (This Congressman Could Turn the Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms Upside Down, Fortune)

The idea that a Congressman can devote all his energy to lifting the ban on “abusive mortgages” — just eight years after abusive, predatory, toxic mortgages blew up the global financial system costing roughly $50 trillion and years of agonizing retrenchment– seems almost treasonous, doesn’t it? And yet, at the very least, Hensarling is likely to become one of Trump’s chief advisors on financial regulations. Go figure?

What, in God’s name, is Trump trying to achieve? On the one hand, he blames the Fed for inflating another gigantic asset bubble and, on the other, he tries to remove the regulatory obstacles to bubble-making. What sense does that make?

Here’s a little more background on Trump’s crusade against regulation. This is from the Wall Street Journal:

“Donald Trump has tapped a longtime critic of heavy regulation to flesh out his new administration’s plans for remaking the financial rule book, including the potential dismantling of much of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul.

Paul Atkins served as a Republican member of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2002 to 2008, where he spoke out against big fines for companies, arguing they punish shareholders. Now Mr. Atkins, 58 years old, is the member of the president-elect’s transition team charged with recommending policies on financial regulation, according to current and former regulators briefed on the matter.

Mr. Trump has detailed little about his views on financial regulation beyond his vow to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank law.” (Donald Trump’s Point Man on Financial Regulation: A Former Regulator Who Favors a Light Touch, Wall Street Journal)

Trump also wants to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which recently imposed a $100 million fine on Wells Fargo for using bank employees to create more than 2 million unauthorized accounts to meet sales quotas. The action was applauded by consumer groups across the board which is why Trump will make every effort to defang the watchdog agency. The president-elect appears to be gearing up to eliminate any rule that impairs Wall Street’s ability to rake in bigger profits, whether it puts the American people at risk or not.

So how does this square with Steve Bannon’s comments about coalition building and desire for a stronger economy?

I can’t figure it out, after all, Bannon sounds like a true believer, a no-nonsense, red-blooded, blue collar working guy who hates the Wall Street, the Republican establishment and the mainstream media. What’s not to like about that?

But how does Bannon’s hardscrabble upbringing, his commitment to tea party uprising, and his take-no-prisoners combativeness, jibe with these flagrant tax giveaways, this anti-worker deregulation, and a fiscal policy that only benefits the uber wealthy? I don’t get it??

In an extremely persuasive interview with Buzzfeed News, Bannon disparages the new strain of “Ayn Rand” capitalism that objectifies people and turns them into commodities. He expands on this idea by giving a brief synopsis of the financial crisis that many will find galvanizing. Here’s a clip:

“The 2008 crisis, … which, by the way, I don’t think we’ve come through — is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks. …
And one of the reasons is that we’ve never really gone and dug down and sorted through the problems of 2008. Particularly the fact — think about it — not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis. And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and none of their equity was taken. So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the 15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that’s one of the fuels of this populist revolt that we’re seeing as the tea party…

The bailouts were absolutely outrageous, and here’s why: It bailed out a group of shareholders and executives who were specifically accountable. …

In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I believe, that they should have criminal indictments against — not one of those has ever been followed up on. … (and) Middle-class taxpayers, people that are working-class people, right, people making incomes under $50,000 and $60,000, it was the burden of those taxpayers, right, that bailed out the elites. …

It’s all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out. And they’ve never been held accountable today. Trust me — they are going to be held accountable.” (This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World, Buzzfeed News)

Repeat: “They are going to be held accountable.”

Bravo! He wants to lock them up. He wants the bankers to be held accountable and locked up! Who doesn’t want that? Every working slob in America wants that. This is why Bannon has attracted such a loyal following; it’s because his analysis of the financial crisis and its aftermath are “dead on”. The American people know they were ripped off, know that Wall Street is infested with crooks and parasites, and know that the country is governed by a corrupt and unaccountable oligarchy of racketeers.

Bannon has tapped into powerful feelings of frustration and rage, and he’s built a thriving movement on top of them. But where’s the beef? His economic policy just doesn’t deliver the goods. Bannon is talking the talk, but he’s not walking the walk.

The tax cuts don’t deliver for working people and neither does deregulation. So what about the third part of Trump’s economic plan, the fiscal stimulus component?

Bannon says he’s the driving force behind the $1 trillion infrastructure development program. Unfortunately, the program is little more than a scam. Let me explain:

Typically, when people think about fiscal stimulus, they imagine expensive Keynesian “shovel ready” infrastructure projects with lots of well-paid government workers building bridges, roads, rapid transit systems and even schools. That’s not what this is. According to economist Jared Bernstein:

“Instead of just allocating the needed resources as in the traditional approach, they propose to “offer some $137 billion in tax breaks to private investors who want to finance toll roads, toll bridges, or other projects that generate their own revenue streams.”

Since the plan depends on private investors, it can only fund projects that spin off user fees and are profitable. Rural roads, water systems, and public schools don’t fall into that category. Neither does public transit, which fails on the profitable criterion (it depends on public subsidies.” (Trump’s misguided flirtation with Keynesianism, Politico)

This isn’t going to work. It’s completely self defeating. This is just more of the same, more handouts to big business. The whole point of fiscal stimulus is to get money in the hands of the people who will spend it fast, rev up the economy, boost growth, generate more demand and get the economy out of its eight-year-long funk. The rebuilding of infrastructure is secondary, in fact, it doesn’t even matter. What matters is getting money circulating in the perennially-moribund economy. Caspice?

Here’s more on the Trump infrastructure boondoggle from an article in the Washington Post:

“Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton’s 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. … There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for … expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects…

Second, as a result of the above, Trump’s plan isn’t really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there’s no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring. …

Buried inside the plan will be provisions to weaken prevailing wage protections on construction projects, undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers’ earnings. Environmental rules are almost certain to be gutted in the name of accelerating projects.” (Trump’s big infrastructure plan? It’s a trap. Washington Post)

These so called “public-private partnerships” are just another way for big business to suck money out of the government. They don’t help the economy, not really, and they don’t help workers either. If Bannon is serious about building his coalition on the back of a robust economy, there’s an easier way to do it. First get rid of the corporate ideologues and supply side radicals whose theories never work. Then hire a team of reputable economists who have first-hand experience implementing thorny stimulus programs of this magnitude. (Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, Dean Baker, Michael Hudson, Jack Rasmus)

Then start with the low-hanging fruit, that is, put money into already-running programs that will produce immediate results. For example, in James Galbraith’s epic article “No Return to Normal” the economist recommends increasing Social Security payments. Think about that. It’s a complete no-brainer. The people who live on Social Security spend every dime they get every month, which means that — if their payments go up by, let’s say, $200 or more per month– then all that dough goes straight into the economy which is what fiscal stimulus is all about. Also, increase food stamp funding, lower the Medicare age of eligibility, and rehire a portion of the 500,000 federal workers who lost their jobs in the Crash of ’08. These policies will put money into the economy immediately, boosting growth, increasing wages, and strengthening the prospects for whatever political party happens to be in office.

The point is, fiscal stimulus doesn’t have to be a boondoggle and it doesn’t require “shovel ready” jobs. All that’s needed is a competent team of economic advisors who know what the hell they’re doing and the political will to get the job done. Trump’s economic plan doesn’t do that, all it does is slightly improve GDP while trillions of dollars are transferred to the bank accounts of behemoth corporations and Wall Street cronies.

If Bannon is serious about fixing the economy and rebuilding the Republican party, my advice to him would be: Give Galbraith a call.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics • Tags: Donald Trump, Taxes 
Hide 90 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. tax plan will reduce revenue by more than $9 trillion

    All due respect to Dean Baker, yeah, but the tax plan is only one element of his program, and it needs to be evaluated in context.

    I mean: suppose he introduces 45% tariffs on everything produced in China, Mexico, etc. Suppose these tariffs lead to industries coming back to the US, creating an economic boom unseen in decades. What would be the net effect then?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  2. J. Edgar hoovers asshole baby!

  3. peter howes says: • Website

    Whitney needs to read the economic policies of Mussolini and Hitler during the hight of the Great 1930’s Depression. The fascist economies recovered FIRST from the economic western world meltdown, It emulated Keynesian policies in structure but not in exact detail. Obviously Whitney is not cognizant with the theorys of the Corporate State (Mussolini 1934) where by a three large Councils (regulated economy with a mix of free enterprise, government imput, controlled labour. While not exactly the same system, Trump is moving in this direction and it can well work; but only if China and Russia cooperate in the exercise. As a pseudo-leftist liberal Whitney ignores the Trump attitude to American wars conducted by neocons under the guise of promoting democracy, feminism in other countries. An ideological means to justify imperialist attack on others, in the same display of cultural arrogance the British Empire once displayed with its White Mans Burden doctrine last century. All now renamed as Democratizing nations as the US is the one exceptional, indispensible people! Naturally Trump will have to curtail the bloated US military with its 1100 overseas military bases, its 70% funding of NATO’s annual budget. The billions saved here can be directed to the rebuilding of the US infrastructure. Jobs then have the Keynesian detonator effect in the economy. expanding economic activity twenty fold for each dollar invested. Under the fascists Big Business controlled the finances under plans set up by Govt. The detail today is marginal. America always was Fascist with its Democracy a sham as both parties are the same in essence. Germany and Italy also had multi parties under fascism. All with the same policies of course. Just as todays western political systems are much the same. Neo-globalism was a means of stealing the world by Imperialist war, hidden under the banner of political Liberalism. No different in substance to all 19-20th century wars. In fact since 1945 America has conducted some 157 wars and coups; even one in Australia against Whitlam govt in the 1970’s. Whitney has always lived uder fascism, its just that its methods have changed, less direct. To survive Elites will do anything, including changing its social mask, but keeping nationalism and racism when needed. Whitney and his kind paved the way for this fiasco due to liberal/left policies over the last 40 years and the abandonment of the Marxist alternative. Why be suprised? To survive Trump and Co must control the Fed, take control from the one % of family oligarchs and stop the private (five family owned) banks from printing money from thin air charging usurous interest. They must cancel the $20 trillion debt as unpayable; issue a new currency (as one of a basket of currencies) for world trade. This means a huge drop in the American military establishment and spending which reduces risk of world war; at least in the short/mid term. Killery would have started a war within months according to RT. Trump is not alone; he is a developer and makes money via rents and property development, he is supported in this by manufactures; this class is opposed to the military-industrial complex that works via war and plunder of ruined nations. This tiny ten % are insane and have alienated support around the western establishment and population. Austerity and war is never popular especially in harsh economic times. So it is the 1930’s all over again. What we need is old style Marxist-Leninist populalist parties (class orientated) as the only alternative. But liberals like Whitney and pseudo-Anarchists like Chomsky do not see it this way. It is intellectuals like them (plus the Greers) who have led the Left to this situation. Now the old traditional Left is Right and the traditional Right act Left. Whats new? Did not Hitler and Musso claim they were socialists? The Left need to get a brain and re-read the old ‘Marxist classics with new.class-orientated eyes! We deserve what we get!

  4. Diogenes says:

    I agree with Mike, Trump’s plan, a kind of “trickle down economics” by lowering taxes and deregulation, etc is just a recipe for more wealth inequality.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @bluedog
  5. Whitney is worse than a Mondy Morning quarterback (the day after the game). He’s a Thursday Morning quarterback, 3 days before the game even starts.

    Message to Mike: If the shit that Trump and Bannon and company try to do does not work to make people have work, have better pay? Then Trump will experience hell on earth from the people who believed in him. No more letting things go like was done with Clinton in the 90s and Bush and Obama.

    The jig is up.

    So Mikey? You might be right. You might be wrong. Why don’t we just wait a bit and see. It’s not about if it’s going to work or not, and no one, least of all you, has a crystal ball. And second-guessing policy from statements so far made is stupid. Trump is an obvious pragmatist, which means he can make changes when they are called for. Furthermore, Trump has said many times he doesn’t like to telegraph his moves.

    The jig is up.

    Something must be done. Trump was elected to get things done. As Paul Craig Roberts has said here in Unz in today’s column, the only leader who can get things done in the US government as it currently is structured is a somewhat authoritarian figure. Someone who won’t back down and who will make some bold statements leading to some major changes.

    But these changes must be made, and more importantly, they must actually work. And the lead time on their working is very much more shorter than it ever was before. If things get worse from Trump’s leadership? There won’t be Trump leadership and others will be sought out, who make changes that put people to work and bring some type of prosperity back to the people of the United States.

    Stop second guessing columns like this nonsense you write day in day out! Take a vacation.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
  6. Anonymous [AKA "shastatodd"] says:

    “Now the question is: Can Trump deliver?”

    not even trump can mitigate the laws of physics. infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet. sorry folks, but this is how reality works.

  7. Serious question here:

    Do “authors” here get paid by contribution or by volume ?

  8. If he fails, throw him out. The media and the elites are already gunning for him. If he screws over the people who elected him, what political support does he have to fall back on? Imagine the new York Times and the Washington Post running the headline:

    Hey Trump! You’re Fired!

    This economic garbage some from Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation.

  9. map says:

    Look, this article is misconceived. Trump is neither a jingoistic nationalist nor a hate-the-rich lefty. His entire campaign was predicated on altering the incentives under which the United States operates, incentives created by incompetent politicians and managers, to create improvements. If he is going to impose tariffs on imports and make labor arbitrage and mass immigration an unprofitable exercise, and force repatriation of US businesses into America, then he has to offset the costs elsewhere. That will be in the form of taxes and regulation. He does not want to punish Ford or Carrier for leaving the US. He just wants to change the economic calculus so they will stay and continue employing US workers at the previous wages.

    We have lived long enough on this planet to realize that government regulations have nothing to do with protecting anyone. They represent the government’s cut in shaking down enterprises, if not an outright partnership with big business to rip off the public. Look at Wells Fargo. They stole billions from their clients and the government fined it $100 million, i.e. the government got $100 million cut of the Wells’ ill-gotten gains. No one is going to jail. Wells isn’t losing its license to do business in the US. In fact, the executive that ran the program walked away with $120 million pay package. Government regulation is just a franchise fee to engage in theft.

    Dodd-Frank is even worse, and, if it a toothless law anyway, then why bother having it? Forcing a bank to maintain “capital standards” means it forces depositors to keep money in the bank in exchange for basic services. You have to keep $500-$1,000 just to maintain your checking account whereas that requirement did not exist before. Again, another regulation designed to rip people off.

    Trump redesigning these regulations is a good first step.

  10. A suggestion to Ron Unz: I wish he would hire Economics writers with different views from the ones currently on the site (Whitney and Hudson). I mean, this site is extremely eclectic when it comes to its political writers, why not diversify it (and enlarge it) in the Economics department also? Hudson and Whitney have well-known positions and they express themselves with extreme arrogance, as if what they preach were obvious and anything diverging from that is an offense of the highest order to logic, moral, and good manners in general. I believe in capitalism even in the field of ideas. Let there be some competition here. This looks like a cartel of two.

    PS i don’t know the Fingleton guy. Maybe he is the answer to my prayers.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    , @Karl
  11. @Brás Cubas

    Mass 3rd World Immigration and Tariffs are amongst a number of very important topics Whitney and Hudson ( or Whitney Hudson as I call them ) don’t want to talk about, so they purposefully omit them.
    I would advise you to stop reading the dishonest trash spouted by this pair and read Mr Fingleton instead. He deals with these matters excellently and his views on Advanced Manufacturing are highly informative. The only depressing aspect is he thinks the rot in American Manufacturing may be too deep-set for Trump to rectify.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  12. @Verymuchalive

    Señor Trump knows next to nothing about manufacturing and the same can be said of most of the well-heeled advisers he is hiring on, or trying to hire on. If most of them have any thoughts on the subject they likely think it is a function of marketing, capital investment, and entrepreneurship. The same can be said of the vast majority of United Statesian politicos, including the Clintons, Obama, the Bushes, and the rest,

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  13. nsa says:

    Whitney’s suggested “no brainer” expansion of social security has already been implemented. Anyone finding their way to the offices of Binder & Binder with their newly discovered bad lower back can get on the federal SS disability dole for the rest of their useless lives. The mill in Aberdeen-Hoquiam closed down and 80% of those layed off signed up for federal SS Disability……$1200/month tax free forever plus food stamps, rental subsidy, and free medical……more if the recipient can dredge up some dependents. By Whitney’s lights, giving free money to the legions of botched unemployable morons is how a vibrant productive economy is created…….

  14. Señor Trump has no grand plan and it will not work.

    Not to worry, the people he is hiring on have ten or twenty of them, from the local to the global.

    None of them will work either.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    , @Wally
  15. @peter howes

    When a couple of superficially plausible elements engage interest in what presents as private solipsistic conspiracy theorising it is useful to be able to test confident assertions about which one is informed. In this case the suggestion of an American coup against Australia’s Whitlam government in 1975. Absolute nonsense! Not even Whitlam thought there was any truth in that fantasy. And his replacement as PM , who organised the Senate votes which underpinned Whitlam ‘s sacking, Malcolm Fraser, had become so anti-American well before his death a couple of years ago that there is no chance of a sinister truth not getting out.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  16. attonn says:
    @peter howes

    Very nice summation. America has only three options left: a total economic reset, endless decline, or a fast meltdown. All three are unpleasant to a varying degree.
    The theoretical fourth and the only benign option – the USA becoming a net exporter and exporting its way out of trouble – is shut tight by the dollar’s role as a reserve currency. Therefore, there definitely must be a new world trade unit of exchange.
    Whiney-nomics, of course, is the deadest of dead ends. This leftist mumbo-jumbo never worked anywhere, and never will.

  17. Well there’s no doubt that cutting corporate taxes will have a positive effect. Even socialist Sweden tries to keep corporate taxes low. The other parts are more uncertain. I’d like to see a low-flat tariff introduced on all imports, as suggested by Ian Fletcher. This wouldn’t create that many jobs but it would protect and improve America’s most competitive industries and provide plenty of money for infrastructure repairs and debt repayment.

  18. @E. A. Costa

    Very few political leaders in the modern world come from a manufacturing background. Donald Trump, with his many years experience of construction, is one of the few who approximate to such a background. He is certainly not ignorant, as you claim.
    Those countries with successful industrial policies, such as Japan and Germany, have political leaders who likewise have little manufacturing background. But what they do is to obtain advice from successful domestic manufacturers and act on it. This is what a competent politician would do and I would expect Mr Trump and his team to do likewise.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  19. These so called “public-private partnerships” are just another way for big business to suck money out of the government.

    And in the final analysis that’s what government is all about. Especially big government.

    Anyone, including Marxists, who puts hope and faith in government as an agent for the good of the masses will be inevitably disappointed for a number of reasons.

    Where do people get their faith? Does anyone have a clue about history and human nature or has some Fairy Gawdmother suddenly appeared and magically changed both for the better?

  20. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    But Whitney doesn’t look seriously into the Reagan-era ‘trickle down’ economic plan that King Donald is offering.

    Just look at all the custom jets and yachts, plus mansions that will get built and sold to those getting the big tax breaks! And let’s not leave out the sellers of antique Louis 14 salon chairs!

  21. On the one hand, he blames the Fed for inflating another gigantic asset bubble and, on the other, he tries to remove the regulatory obstacles to bubble-making. What sense does that make?

    This is nonsense. There are of course no “regulatory obstacles to bubble-making”, the Fed can inflate and therefore make bubbles as much as it likes. You are (deliberatedly?) confusing two issues:
    – Freemarketeers: The inflating by central banks leads to bubbles and financial crises, therefore let us restrict them from doing it (unrealistic, since there are obvious political advantages gained by doing it) or, better, abolish them and end government monopoly on money
    -Keynesians: No, inflating is all fine, it has anothing to do with the bubbles that for some reason tend to follow. These are somehow intrinsic part of the market economy and we only can get them under control by trying to combat the symptoms via increased government regulation, particularly in the financial markets

  22. Montefrío says: • Website

    Thank you: you’ve expressed what I planed on writing.

  23. We will not rebuild US manufacturing at any level that can make a much difference. That’s all gone with the east wind.
    Having said that we must find something worthwhile for the great bulk of our young people to do. Something to get them up in the morning and out on the job. Got to do this or another generation dies on the mean streets. Without hope, how on earth can we expect our young people to prosper or take responsible citizenship seriously?

    I think Trump will be hard pressed to learn the job, fill all those thousand of posts and fine tune the choices in the remaining weeks. So what. He’ll have all of 2017 and beyond to fix things with his infamous…You’re fired!
    That part of his personality and modus operandi can make all the difference. My fingers are crossed. Toes too!

  24. @E. A. Costa

    So what, nothing you say works either.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

  25. Whitney is simply hoping DT’s plan does not work, thats all this tripe boils down to.

    Leftist, malicious pseudo-intellectuals, don’t give a shit about the avarage guy trying pay the rent.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @blank-misgivings
  26. But what about the infrastructure? According to the civil engineers, roads, bridges, water delivery systems, airports, etc. are seriously deficient. Unfotunately, those projects are carried out by private builders who will make mucho dinero. Just as long as the infrastructure is not turned over t0 them and remains public property, rather than generating rents to the end of time, the notion is to be appreciated.

    Rebuilding infrastructure seems better than printing money for seniors to spend. The Japanese and Chinese have gone that route to keep their economies buoyant. Japan is said to be overbuilt with too many underutilized roads and bridges. China is yet to be overbuilt.

    The criminal bankers get a pass, just as the CIA torturers got a pass from Obama. Sic transit cursus historiae! <- I just made that up

  27. n230099 says:

    Insert groans here.

    “No, the majority of Trump supporters did not vote for a racist (surveys also show that a majority of these people support a way for undocumented immigrants to attain US citizenship) “

    Good grief son, the ‘undocumented’ are not a ‘race’. A marginally interesting piece destroyed by the gratuitous blatherings of losers.

  28. bluedog says:
    @peter howes

    Yep isn’t Fascism wonderful well until it isn’t that is, and we have reached that point for we know what happened to Mussolini and a number here should join him hanging upside down from a street light,.@@@

  29. Trumponomics is just warmed-over Reaganomics. The transfer of all wealth to the 0.1% will now proceed as planned.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Tabasco Jack
  30. “… if he is sincere in his desire to defeat the corrupt political establishment and build a coalition that “will govern for 50 years”, he’s going to have to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic strategy.”

    That was a gratuitous comment that was left hanging in the following discussion. Truth is, keeping the low-skilled , low-paid as well as some of the high-skilled, high-paid foreign labour that has been arbitraging local US wage scales down and pushing lower-paid blacks (and a lot of whites) out of the labour force altogether is a necessary step in starting a rising tide that lifts all boats.

    As with free trade, it has been a canard that as allowed the top 0.1% to strip-mine the vast share of the wealth generated by their new immigrant slave labour force and the slave labour forces abroad to which so many US jobs have been outsourced … the tighter, local labour economy will necessarily require more of the wealth to be spread around, just like it was in the immediate post-war years and through the 1960s.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  31. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Trump= Fox in the hen house

    I agree with many Americans that the system is dysfunctional and Hillary a venal candidate but disagree strongly that it can’t get worse. Look at history. Look at the world today. It can get a lot worse.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Tabasco Jack
  32. Bill says:

    What will the old folks do with the extra money? Spend it on manufactures? Where are these manufactures manufactured? China. And this will simulate the US economy how? The post-crash stimulus used these antiquated Keynesian nostrums as articulated by the usual suspects. China was pleased.

    Stimulating the US economy specifically is not that easy which is why infrastructure so attractive as a policy.

    Mostly, though, Whitney’s critique is pretty reasonable. Trump’s tax plan is Ryan’s tax plan, more or less. The only sensible thing in it is the corporate tax cut.

    There seems to be a real danger that Trump is going to be a conventional Republican.

  33. @Authenticjazzman

    Well you’re the MENSA member, as you ceaselessly remind us, so what’s your solution? Whitney is simply pointing out that Trump’s economic policies (as so far stated) will increase the (economic and hence political) power of rent seeking Ivy League elites in finance and big business. You don’t have to be a Keynesian to oppose that.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  34. Trump presidency will be another disappointment for those who voted for him.
    USA plainly has no choice anymore in election system. There is no worthy individuals for the highest office. Trump is just the best form the worst and it is not enough.
    USA imho opinion should be cordoned to avoid making troubles for the rest of the world while in transition from global to local power.

  35. I agree with bringing down the top tax rate from 39.5%, but the ultra-rich get most of their income taxed at the senseless 20% capital gains rate, which is lower than middle class income is taxed. So bring the top tax rate down even as low as 30%, but count all income as income, and the government pockets many billions more. This also kills the carried interest loophole. Don’t tell me the BS that this discourages investment; they are not going to stuff cash in a mattress instead.

    Close half of our overseas military bases, which are unneeded to maintain a global force. Get rid of half our nukes, 1500 nukes is plenty, and this will save billions more.

    Lower the Medicare age to 62, to cover eight million more Americans with efficient single payer. This will encourage millions of 62-65 year olds to retire and open millions more jobs to younger people. These people have enough income to retire, but keeping working because health insurance would cost too much. Kill Obamacare to pay for it.

    Stay with the hardline on illegal immigration. Require E-verify and enforce it and most the problem goes away. End all work visas except for a special program that requires a $50,000 annual fee payment, which ensures only those really needed get in. Deport all those arrested for any crimes, it will be a good jobs program. End all the idiotic refugee programs, like the lottery insanity. Stop giving “Family” visas so immigrants can’t bring their elderly parents over and dump them on SSI and Medicare (this is a million a year)

    If 10 million illegal workers leave, that creates 10 million jobs for Americans, although business may have to offer higher wages. Crime, school crowding, public hospital costs, and urban traffic will fall.

  36. Wally says:
    @E. A. Costa

    How do you know & Whitney know anything?

    Trump was just elected, won’t be president until Jan. 20, ’17, hasn’t spelled out any real details, hasn’t appointed all the people, and hasn’t implemented anything.

    Face it, your side lost and you’re having a hard time dealing with it. LOL.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  37. @Mao Cheng Ji

    45% tariffs, or even 4.5% tariffs will make both the USA and the rest of the world (WTO rules require uniform application of tariffs – US breaks the rules and everyone is free to supercharge tariffs against US too) poorer. Within the US, there may be more equality as local labour improves its position to extract more value whether the gains of the 80% are enough to compensate for the increased prices is the key, unforecastable issue. The 20% will lose but maybe not the last 0.25%. So, will better equality for the working class 80% be more powerful politically than the loss of prosperity for the top 20%? This is the unknowable.

    The UK is facing a similar, less voluntary, situation as a result of Brexit.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
  38. annamaria says:
    @peter howes

    Thank you for the excellent summary.

  39. annamaria says:
    @The Alarmist

    “…the top 0.1% to strip-mine the vast share of the wealth generated by their new immigrant slave labour force and the slave labour forces abroad…”
    True. We live in a time of neo-feudalism.

  40. which is why I think bernie would have beaten trump 100% retarded DNC and it’s leaders.

  41. @Philip Owen

    So, will better equality for the working class 80% be more powerful politically than the loss of prosperity for the top 20%? This is the unknowable.

    Yes. And I’m not optimistic. The reason I’m not optimistic is that the US mainstream media are completely (and seemingly irreversibly) controlled by the plutocrats. But hey, who knows, anything is possible…

  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @peter howes

    Ugghhhhh. Looks like we have some 4chan boys who are starting to post here with their weak National Socialism movement.

    This isn’t 4chan! You need to post more than rambling thoughts and you need to know things on a deeper level than just enough to post memes.

    Go back to your basement 4chan boy!

  43. Karl says:
    @Brás Cubas

    > suggestion to Ron Unz: I wish he would hire Economics writers with different views

    Ron Unz cannot afford the hourly rates of guys who can predict the most likely price of a soybeans contract, three days from now.

    Anyway, Cuban Bra, if you want actionable economic information, you will have to pay the sticker price for it.

  44. utu says:

    “he’s going to have to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic strategy. ”

    I do not understand why Mr. Whitney says so? The economic plan of Bannon will benefit form lowering immigration. Does Mr. Whitney think that the immigration issue will be just a political obstruction in Congress?

  45. Sam Shama says:

    Trump’s plan as I understand it, is going to end up as a massive tax rebate to corporates. It works like this:

    – $100 project
    -$80 financed through debt sold to the proposed Infrastructure Bank at Fed Funds Rate + small spread.
    -$20 paid in as private capital which then owns the completed asset/infrastructure
    – private capital gets to receive a tax rebate on the entire $100, essentially a cheque written by the treasury to corporate entities.

    The result is obvious. A corporate with an existing tax bill from current income [on separate previous assets] of $100 will essentially not pay any taxes until it’s income exceeds $100. The intention is to spur massive private participation which in itself is great, however, the tax subsidies are massive. There’s no dancing around calling this anything other than pure corporate welfare. And what about many infrastructural needs that do not produce direct revenues, but ones that are direly needed: sewage and water treatment, research, etc?

    I’d be fine with it if employees receive a significant increase in wages to go with it. However, what are the odds of that?

    Perhaps 401(k)’s will be mandated to buy financial stocks? 🙂

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @jacques sheete
  46. KenH says:

    I don’t pretend to know anything more about Steve Bannon than I’ve read in the newspapers and on the Internet. What I do know, however, is that if he is sincere in his desire to defeat the corrupt political establishment and build a coalition that “will govern for 50 years”, he’s going to have to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic strategy.

    Whitney needs to explain this comment. Enforcing immigration law and crafting immigration policy designed to benefit American citizens and incidentally, the white majority, is just common sense. Whitney must be some type of intellectual who’s never had to compete in the real world as he would see how mass third world immigration depresses wages and leads to dwindling job opportunities for all Americans.

    It’s even worse being white since we’re handicapped by affirmative action policies. It is not “the engine that drives the U.S. economy” as free trade and open borders hardliners repeatedly claim.

    Where Steve Bannon and for that matter, Trump, get it all wrong is assuming that the key to a long term Republican multiracial voting coalition lies in the realm of economic determinism by simply bringing enough jobs back from renegotiated free trade policies and infrastructure spending. This smacks of Marxist thought by reducing all people to mere economic beings and discounts race and the vast racial differences that exist between white, black and Latino.

    Even with the heavy race pandering that last month leading up to the election Trump only garnered a 3 point increase in Latino support from 2012 (~30% total) and 6 percentage point increase among blacks to around 13% which is about what Republicans typically received pre-Obama. If Obama was allowed to run for a third term he would have received 93-95% again owing to the fierce racial loyalty among blacks.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  47. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sam Shama

    however, the tax subsidies are massive.

    i.e., up to 15% of the total project cost, if the corporate tax rate is cut to 15%. However, if the project creates new employment, and assuming that labor accounts for a substantial proportion of the project cost, is it not the case that much, if not all, of the tax relief to the developer will be recaptured in (a) payroll and income taxes paid by labor, and (b) savings in welfare expenditure due to increased labor force participation?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  48. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    he’s going to have to find a way to climb down on his hardline immigration policies in order to implement his economic strategy.

    Whitney needs to explain this comment.

    Thing is, globalists are so used to seeing labor as a commodity to be acquired in the cheapest market at home or abroad, that if someone say, “no, labor is not a commodity, labor constitutes our citizenry for whom the economy exists,” they just don’t get it.

    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji
  49. @Sam Shama

    There’s no dancing around calling this anything other than pure corporate welfare.

    I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell ya! 😉

    • Replies: @bluedog
  50. Rehmat says:

    President-elect Donald Trump’s claim he is reinvestigating 9/11 is just so much meaningless hot air — more neocon crapola — if he intends to solve the greatest crime in American history by including two of the event’s participating perpetrators — Rudy Giuliani and Lewis Eisenberg — on his team of detectives….

  51. Here is how this sort of analysis breaks down.

    We have applied A,B,C,D to arrive at our current policies. According to A,B,C,D, those policies are correct. If reality seems to tell you the current policies are a disaster, see A,B,C,D.

    We have analyzed Trump economic plan according to A,B,C,D. Our analysis reveals it cannot possibly work.

  52. @peter howes

    The fascist economies recovered FIRST from the economic western world meltdown, It emulated Keynesian policies in structure but not in exact detail.

    The claimed economic miracle in Germany was melting down into hyperinflation and food shortages before WWII even started. That’s the catch with a lot of economic policies: it can take 20 years or more to properly tally the score. You can waste a lot of wealth for a long time before it matters. The first order effects of policies don’t tell you the end result.

    A lot of people like talking about how great a job the ChiComs have done over the last 25 years. Let’s talk again in 15 years.

  53. Sam Shama says:

    For (a) and (b) one can only hope, which is to say it not a plan 🙂 and given trends of the last three decades accrual of income to per unit labour has badly lagged returns to capital. And that is about to get worse. Furthermore, reductions in welfare spending, in and of itself a rather small portion of the budget, isn’t going to bring about any significant savings.

    What I fail to understand, is why the public sector cannot pursue the projects directly. Private suppliers can and should be bidding on supplying the projects but a wholesale ownership of essential revenue producing public services going to private hands is something I dread. Have we not recently experienced the shameful public-private “partnerships” like traffic control devices basically engaged in shaking down the citizenry? ( ] A public service in my reckoning is something that is a “must have” and therefore akin to natural monopolies, wherein private profit making is bound to be exploitative.

    Look, these are my initial thoughts and naturally a great deal depends on the details. We shall have to wait and see I suppose.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @utu
  54. @Verymuchalive

    “Donald Trump, with his many years experience of construction, is one of the few who approximate to such a background. He is certainly not ignorant, as you claim.”

    Construction “approximates” manufacturing about as much as Legos “approximate” designing and casting toy soldiers.

  55. Kind of off topic, but the picture for this article, that hand looks like it belongs to a tweaker. There are sores and a strange hole in the thumb. I can’t take any of this article seriously because of that.

  56. @Chuck Barnard

    Yes, indeed. Wait until all the Trump humpers find out that they swindled by the Donald. What a choice the American people were offered, a murderous, thieving hag on one side and a grifter on the other.

  57. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sam Shama

    Private suppliers can and should be bidding on supplying the projects but a wholesale ownership of essential revenue producing public services going to private hands is something I dread.

    One justification for doing it that way is that the public sector is usually remarkable incompetent, extravagant and slow at organizing the construction of anything.

    Thus infrastructure projects would likely best be designed and funded, as well as carried out, by the private sector provided that there is competition both in design and on cost. This makes particularly good sense when speed of project initiation is of the essence.

    Some projects would be well suited to long-term private ownership, e.g., renovation and repurposing of run-down buildings such as the Michigan Central Station in Detroit. But others should allow for transfer to public ownership at completion or some point thereafter.

  58. utu says:
    @Sam Shama

    “What I fail to understand, is why the public sector cannot pursue the projects directly. ”

    They have been working for last 40 years on all possible fronts (*) to take this option off the table and erase any ideas of public sector from people’s minds. There is nobody who could put back the public sector on the table. Both the left and the right speak the same language.

    (*) think tanks, academia, departments of economy, media, entertainment, TV programming.

  59. @Wally

    “Face it, your side lost”

    Which side is that? Trump versus Clinton? P. T. Barnum versus The Wicked Witch of the West? You poor hapless child.

    “We are not in the Eighth dimension, we are over New Jersey.”

    Keep hoping, jeje.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  60. Dr. Doom says:

    Is economics a religion? You seem to have a lot of Faith in the false gods of growth and consumption. Lemme tell you sport, that shit about stimulus and balancing budgets seems like chicken shit doubletalk when our cities look like ancient ruins. Immigration isn’t even a thing. We never had any labor shortages to explain this stupid globalist invasion scam.
    Let me tell you this, enlightened self-interest and existential threats lead to change. Massive change. There’s a new normal, and its not you. Your broken record was never popular, but now its due for lead poisoning.
    The only contribution that Muslims made to America was inspiring the formation of the US Navy and Marines to bomb the shit out of the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. The other “minorities” are failed races that fucked up their homelands and generate nothing but crime and domestic anger. That shit is now over.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  61. sarz says:
    Ellen Brown shows how Bannon and Trump can get the results they want, without trying to give it all away to the rich. It’s based on the original American financial secret, before there was a United States. It’s state-issued debt-free money spent into circulation. America needs this woman running the Treasury.

  62. Trump’s Economic Plan: This Isn’t Going to Work

    Oh, yeah?

    It’ll work splendidly.

    For the anointed few.

    As usual and as intended.

  63. bluedog says:
    @jacques sheete

    My My My corporate welfare who would of thunk it, but after all its the American way always has been always will be until the people change it and I just don’t believe that will happen.@@@

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  64. @blank-misgivings

    [You have been repeatedly warned to avoid profanity in your comments, which also regularly contain spelling and grammatical errors. Furthermore, your endless unverified braggadocio is highly irritating, and most of what you contribute are content-free fulminations that add almost nothing to the discussion. Unless you rapidly mend your ways, more and more of your comments will be trashed until none of them appear at all.]

    ” So what’s your solution”

    Look “capitalism” is not an ideology, which has to be “applied” and there are no other goals therein other than simply selling one’s wares or services and to try to turn a profit in the process, and the only thing that has to be done now is to remove as many hurdles, which were installed by the anti-business communists otherwise known as Democrats, as possible.

    The humongous tomes of business stiffeling regulations are mindboggling and this is what must be dealt with.

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  65. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @E. A. Costa

    You may be a genius in the formulation of an obscure sneer, and you are certainly free with the insult direct, but you have expressed no definite ideas on the subject under discussion.

    So perhaps you’ll tell us, what is your idea of good economic policy for America?

    Continued export of jobs, for the enrichment of the shareholding 0.01%, while real wages and the workforce participation rate, continue to fall?

    More presidentially-enabled illegal mass immigration to fuel the underground, below-minimum-wage, no-tax-paid economy?

    Or do you see a hot war with Russia as the best way to stimulate the economy, starting with Hillary’s Syria no-fly zone, followed by bombing Russia in retaliation for alleged intervention in America’s farcically untrustworthy vote-counting process, and a new Crimean War in the interests Hillary’s Nazi-backed friends in Kiev?

  66. NO ONE will fix the economy when the producers of real wealth, farmers, are paid 65% less than what they should be getting according to government statistics referenced by the National Organization for Raw Materials, concerning what is the law, Parity, as is still in effect, 7 USC 602.

    Mr. Whitney is correct in questioning the ‘Tax Break” approach, but frankly tax breaks or not, the real issue is that producers of real wealth, raw material wealth, are not making a fair profit that is in balance with manufacturing and service sectors.

    What this means is that the American economy is losing trillions of dollars in what should be “Earned Income” that was once most democratically spread out into the economy from the once family farms that kept this nation alive, literally and essentially in a monetary economic sense. It was proven that for every $1 earned from agriculture, the national income can be calculated by a factor of 7. So underpay producers of wealth from a $1 to 33 cents and we all lose out in earned income capital circulating and allowing goods and service exchange to happen naturally.

    In order to make up for this lost income of what is money without a debt-burden, we are tricked by the money changers into going into debt, through credit expansion, to inject capital into the system to make things work. What this has done, since we stopped ensuring a fair price
    for such wealth production, from 1953 onward, is to slowly starve the American Economy of

    This is why we abandoned Parity, because the “interests whose interest is interest” through the auto industry, could not sell credit when there was already profit and savings in the economy, driving purchases, etc. The attack against Parity, which had been successfully adopted in full at the outset of World War II, to address the crisis of the war. Thus the ‘Arsenal of Democracy” was literally fed to the full, where we did not have to force farming at the end of a bayonet, and where the post war recession did not happen because earned income profit was being sufficiently generated to keep things going.

    The Great Depression was nothing more than no profit going to the largest purchasers of capital equipment in the country, which was agriculture. America in 1933 was producing and manufacturing as much as it ever had, but the price collapse had interfered with the movement of such goods and services.

    Cheap food, produces a cheap economy…..down to dollar store cheapness. We can not domestically manufacture, because we do not allow a profit to come from our producers of initial wealth, who spend that wealth. In order to make up the corporate guys, go into a feeding frenzy, as firms go out of business, their assets bought up, consolidations, offshoring, the race to the bottom, with dumb so called economist following the next stupid “money scheme’ that
    just puts us further into debt.

    An astute President, concerned about the forgotten man, would address this situation, by upholding the law. to thus tell the commodity markets, that trading will be in the next year bring storable commodities up from 33% of Parity, up to 45% the first year, 60% the next and upward towards 90%-110 of full parity as the goal. This will multiply through the economy as that money will flow into the economy as it is used already in the economy.

    In the first year we will have billions of dollars of extra income flowing into our poorest communities and not into what are subsidy programs for insurance companies and corporations and the system of globalist finance that wants to keep everyone one their debt farm.

    Until you remedy the point in the economy where real wealth comes to be monetized, such that we stop stealing our daily bread, we will never remedy our economic system to a place of real prosperity, but will be continued to be tricked into thinking our gadgets, we are down paying, are making us wealthy… just more boom and bust, and scams.

    This is what worked when America was great. It reflects when the markets naturally came to balance, and represents the nation basically setting the value of our money to a fair exchange for essential wealth production. Thus it is a protective measure.

    Bruce Marshall

  67. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Doom

    LOL 🙂 Read Pikettys capital in the 21st century. The real issue is the gap between rich and poor. All the gains go the top 1 % but the lower classes need to be kept busy by throwing crumbs under the table. It was abortion, LGBT etc before. Now it is immigration. Tomorrow, it would be something else.
    By all means deport all immigrants but the problem wont be solved unless a new social contract is in place that encourages families and provides a decent living wage. When there arent enough young for the older population, there is either immigration or declining living standards. This is not rocket science.

  68. @Authenticjazzman

    ” Which also regularly contain spelling and grammatical errors”

    So now contributors to this forum must pass certain “Spelling” and “Grammar” criteria or expect to be barred from the forum.

    First of all ” Spelling” and “Grammar” are both artificial constructs, based upon agreement and
    authoritarian “Opinions”. There are no “Natural laws” which dictate “Right” or “Wrong” spelling or grammar.

    Secondly, as far as my “Unverified Braggadocio is concerned : Nothing here is verified, however the most odious viewpoints are allowed to be expressed.

    Thirdly, obviously you are unable to comprehend my “content-free fulminations”, and you are then passing the blame for your own shortcomings off onto myself.

    And last but not least : If you feel obliged, in typical leftist manner to bar me from this forum, be my guest.

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” Society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

  69. woodNfish says:

    When taxes are reduced, tax revenues increase. Trump’s economic plan includes a lot more than just reducing taxes. It also includes reducing regulation and opening up our industries so they can compete on a truly level playing field instead of giving away our jobs and manufacturing to foreign competitors. We are going to have prosperous times again, and the markets agree – they are all up significantly since Trump won the election.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  70. anon • Disclaimer says:

    GOPe nonsense.

    Trump’s economic plan can be broken into three parts: Tax cuts, deregulation and fiscal stimulus.

    Wrong. Restricting the labor supply is the core of the economic plan.

    GOPe cheap labor economics is the cause of the economic problems as:

    stagnant wages + increased housing costs -> decreased disposable income -> stagnant economy

    The tricky part is the timing. Ideally he wants wages rising just before the tariffs kick in and the manufacturing jobs start coming back.

  71. What a stupid article. His prescription is to re-hire half a million Federal workers? Losing those workers has been the only accomplishment of the Obama administration. We need to pink-slip another half-million, not rehire the past dead weight.

  72. @bluedog

    I wasn’t really shocked. The comment was meant as sarcasm. Your observations are correct that “its the American way always has been always will be until the people change it and I just don’t believe that will happen.”

  73. @woodNfish

    “We are going to have prosperous times again, and the markets agree – they are all up significantly since Trump won the election.”

    You realize, of course, that the various markets have nothing whatever to do with the state of the real economy?

    As for “prosperous times again”–that is an old Roman slogan from the Late Empire, which appeared on coinage as FEL TEMP REPARATIO, either “Felicium temporum reparatio” or (possibly) “Felix temporum reparatio.”

    To wit: “Happy days are here again”(you remember–composed in 1929 and appearing in the film Chasing Rainbows in 1930? Don’t you?)

    Both epochs, the late Roman and the US Depression years, are worth a close look in the context of what followed.

    Keep counting your chickens, jeje.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  74. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    You realize, of course, that the various markets have nothing whatever to do with the state of the real economy?

    In fact, there’s something like a 0.9 correlation between corporate profits and the S & P 5oo.

    But a grasp on reality doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

    Perhaps what you meant to say is that markets do not tell the state of the economy in the future, which is obviously correct, since corporate profits, like stock prices, follow a random walk.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  75. woodNfish says:
    @E. A. Costa

    In case you hadn’t noticed, we’ve been in a depression for the lat 8 years. The fascist, Odumbass, has no clue about economics. The markets usually drop after a presidential election, they didn’t do that this time in anticipation of better times ahead with Trump in charge. Had HRC won, the markets would have dropped.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  76. @Wizard of Oz

    Christopher Boyce was convinced that the dismissal of Whitlam was a US backed operation and he saw the direct feed coming from Australia on the matter. It was the realisation that the US was undermining the democracy of a staunch US ally that motivated him to steal secrets.

    p.s. Thanks for the correction on Voltaire, probably why I say nicer comments about your posts here than anyone else.

  77. @woodNfish

    Please, my dear sir or madame, even mademoiselle, use the proper terminology.

    What happened in August 2008 was the beginning of a Super-Recession, got it? Not a Depression–that word was verboten in the media and in political and economic circles.

    Now, though it began as Super, no one was allowed to use that term that until it persevered and got worse. At that point it became obvious that in fundamentals it was even badder (BADDER, not worse) than the Great Depression.

    So the new economic vocabulary in terms of increasing magnitude is now:

    Recession (small)

    Great Depression (bigger)

    Super-Recession (biggest).

    Now use those terms properly and everyone will think you know some economics, which by the way used to be called Political Economy.

    Sure, Obama is ignorant of economics, as was Bush and Señor Clinton, and Señora Clinton, and also Señor Trump.

    But the Finance Capitalists, who run the show, had everything under control and planned out this time around. First the BAILOUTS, of course. Then–are you ready for this?–the world’s first authentic VIRTUAL RECOVERY.

    Now what is that you may ask? Well, it is very simple. By having the media and their hireling politicians and everyone else immediately start talking about RECOVERY, and using the prescribed vocabulary–abracadabra! a RECOVERY would happen and everything would return to status quo ante, except trivialties like eating, employment, adequate housing, education and so forth.

    And if that did not happen, well, it was easy enough to produce figures to show that it had.

    If even that wore a little thin, then the Finance Captialists could always start a VIRTUAL WORLD WAR, which in fact they have.

    Now master these concepts and this vocabulary if you please. Reading lists may be provided at some future date.

    And remember, though Señor Trump doesn’t know any economics either, and is not even a Finance Capitalist, the whole problem is immigration and MEXICANS.

  78. @CanSpeccy

    “In fact, there’s something like a 0.9 correlation between corporate profits and the S & P 5oo.”

    Think that through, my dear fellow. And explain how mainland China became the world’s largest economy. In fact, has been the world’s largest economy for at least ten years, and NOT in terms of either “markets” or “corporate profits” measured in USD.

    After that you can write an apologia pro vita sua about your career in debt-credit economy. Did you begin as a repo man then work up to commercial banking or was it from betting on the dogs into banking and financial consulting?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  79. This is an ancient conundrum, almost a decade old:

    (1) China is the world’s largest economy.

    (2) The United States is the world’s largest economy in terms of USD.

    From which follows an even more ancient nursery rhyme:

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
    All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
    Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

    Western economists will have trouble following, of course, but the Chinese grasp it immediately.

    Q. E. D.

  80. “That said, I expect Trump will settle on some way to minimize the damage he has done to himself and call on congress to get more involved in the hot-button immigration issue.”

    The author presumably means the damaging position that got the God-Emperor elected in the first place. This is twisted thinking.

  81. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @E. A. Costa

    Think that through, my dear fellow. And explain how mainland China became the world’s largest economy. In fact, has been the world’s largest economy for at least ten years, and NOT in terms of either “markets” or “corporate profits” measured in USD.

    Think you’re telling me something I don’t know?

    As I wrote five years ago: China’s Economy Already Larger Than America’s

    Perhaps if you focused your effort on presenting an argument instead of indulging your taste for insolence, you would stimulate a more useful discussion.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  82. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    This is an ancient conundrum, almost a decade old:

    (1) China is the world’s largest economy.

    (2) The United States is the world’s largest economy in terms of USD.

    What’s the puzzle?

    Of course the US has the largest econ0my in terms of USD.

    Americans have all kinds of expensive stuff the Chinese can’t afford.

    Obamacare for a start, worth trillions.

    A vast array of legal services, worth trilli0ns more.

    The world’s most expensive school system.

    Trillion-dollar wars such as the Chinese couldn’t possible afford.

    Food stamps.

    The world’s largest prison population.

    And, to be fair, even on a purchasing power parity basis, the US has a GDP per capita four times that of China.

    No, the Chinese still have a lot of catching up to do, which, no doubt, is why they are working so hard to catch up, especially in manufacturing technology, rocket science and advanced weapons systems.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    , @E. A. Costa
  83. @CanSpeccy

    Ding hao!–excellent article, my dear fellow! And not a word about the Federal Reserve, jeje. Have you written anything on various Capitalist measures of Standard of Living?

  84. @CanSpeccy

    Alas, despite the irony you miss the point and fall back into your nonsense.

    Now that it is established you have spurts of insight (as in the China economy article), time to examine your swarm of conventional assumptions, economic and otherwise.

    A case in point–it is absolutely true that the United States has the most expensive medical care in the world. And also true that it is among the worst in the world and by numerous objective measures. Try “death due to iatrogenic causes”, for example.

    Get cracking you have a lot of research to do.

  85. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Get cracking you have a lot of research to do.

    Go conjugate with yourself.

    And try to rid yourself of the delusion that your knowledge is vastly superior to that of everyone else here, since what supposed knowledge of political economy you have hinted at possessing seems to amount to no more than a few mundane facts, questionable ideas and probable misconceptions.

    You might also reflect on the fact that “death due to iatrogenic causes” can be stated without excess verbiage simply as “iatrogenic death”, concerning which, here’s an interesting discussion:

    Quack Word #20: ‘Iatrogenic’

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  86. @CanSpeccy

    “Obamacare for a start, worth trillions.”

    Obamacare is not only hyper-Caplitalist, designed outright by the Health Insurers, it is also surely one of the truly great frauds in the history of Finance, Insurance, and Medicine.

    So, after Lenin, what is to be done?

    Another ancient conundrum, also about a decade old:

    (1) The United States, for purely economic reasons, is in DIRE need of Universal Health Care, which done correctly would cost at most about a third of what is presently spent on it by consumers, government, etc.

    (2) No one in his right mind would want Universal Health Care with the present structure of the United States Health Care and “Wellness”–er, “industries”.

    (3) Nor would anyone in his right mind want Universal Health Care directed and effected by the present United States government–including both parties and their various owners.

    (4) Ergo–well—you could definitely use the practice in expanding the ergos.

  87. @CanSpeccy

    Well, one is certainly not going to do the research for you, nor even tell you where it is to be found. Nor submit a resume. Nor provide avenues of address for free. Have a nice day.

  88. bluedog says:

    Trickle down was one of Reagans old scams didn’t work then won’t work now, nor will cutting taxes on the 1% for its a well proven fact that cutting taxes never was a job creator, and as for regulations they took a survey of a number of business’s on how to increase business and regulations came in number ten on the list for lack of sales occupied the number one spot.!!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS