MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

What a Donald Trump presidency would look like -- Quartz (possible impacts on the economy included)

davfordavfor
in Off-Topic
Policies pursued by President's can have an impact on the economy and therefore on our portfolios. So, with that perspective in mind, it makes sense to consider what the current crop of candidates is proposing. This article's discussion of wall building, immigrant deportation, and "winning" against China includes some thoughts about the economic impacts that might result from a Trump presidency.....if his policy proposals remain unchanged and he actually gets to do what he is proposing.

See: http://qz.com/607532/this-is-what-a-donald-trump-presidency-would-actually-look-like/

Comments

  • MarkMark
    a fiasco of unimaginable proportions I prefer not to even consider.It amazes me that this clown has any backing whatsoever but then I think of P. T. Barnum ...
  • Dex
    “There’s no conceivable way in which it’s possible to immediately deport 11 million people,”

    How long and how much money did it cost the US Gov't to import them?

    -------
    I don't care what you think about Trump or the others - why should we can about what some random person writes on a site?

    Posting something on a site does not validate it make it worthy of discussion.

    This is an example of 'link abuse'.
  • davfordavfor
    edited February 2016
    Dex said:

    “
    I don't care what you think about Trump or the others - why should we can about what some random person writes on a site?

    This article got me to thinking in new ways about the possible economic impacts of several of Trump's proposals. That is useful as he is a strong contender at this point in time. As a long time supporter of free trade agreements, one of the article's main conclusions conflicts with my long term personal perspective. But, I still found it useful to consider. The article is presented in that spirit.....
  • MikeMMikeM
    davfor, I agree the article is worth discussion. Many of the things Trump (and others) say are said just to instigate emotion from voters who feel disenfranchised by their government. They don't have to be feasible or even true. Trump is by far the best of the group at using scare and emotion tactics. And when fact checked, most of what he says isn't true. Here is a quote out of a NY Times article from Dec. 2015. I remembered reading it then and went back to look for it.
    Donald J. Trump’s record on truth and accuracy is astonishingly poor. So far, we’ve fact-checked more than 70 Trump statements and rated fully three-quarters of them as Mostly False, False or “Pants on Fire” (we reserve this last designation for a claim that is not only inaccurate but also ridiculous).
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0

    False statements or unfeasible rhetoric doesn't seem to matter to his fan base. But discussing the possible ramifications or consequences, or even the legalities of his rhetoric, if attempted, is worth pondering. All proposals have consequences, good and often bad.
  • Edmond
    edited February 2016
    I seem to recall that in the 1980 election (and for a year or 2 after the Gipper won it), the political opposition continued to demonize Reagan, and viewed (perhaps even coined) the term 'Reaganomics' as a slur. In fact, much of the media, of which Sam Donaldson was emblematic, engaged in what was (tireless-) propaganda, masquerading as journalism, against Reagan.

    A lot of of this "it can never be done" , "its impossible", "its cruel"... these protests very much echo those who opposed Reagan's agenda.

    I see the same patterns emerging with Trump. DowJones, owner of WSJ and Barrons, and the mouthpiece of the top 1% have had a vendetta against Trump for the past 6 months.

    One of the link's topics is deporting 11 million people. Those 11 million crossed the border. They can just UN-cross it. If President Trump 'fails' and only causes 8 of those 11 million to UN-cross it, that's progress.


  • Dex
    davfor said:



    This article got me to thinking in new ways about the possible economic impacts of several of Trump's proposals. That is useful as he is a strong contender at this point in time. As a long time supporter of free trade agreements, one of the article's main conclusions conflicts with my long term personal perspective. But, I still found it useful to consider. The article is presented in that spirit.....

    OK,
    Let's discuss them - start with this one:

    “There’s no conceivable way in which it’s possible to immediately deport 11 million people,”

    How long and how much money did it cost the US Gov't to import them?

    ----------------

    Then you can move onto other points you agree with and why. Just posting a link does not foster discussion.
  • Dex
    Edmond said:

    I seem to recall that in the 1980 election (and for a year or 2 after the Gipper won it), the political opposition continued to demonize Reagan, and viewed (perhaps even coined) the term 'Reaganomics' as a slur. In fact, much of the media, of which Sam Donaldson was emblematic, engaged in what was (tireless-) propaganda, masquerading as journalism, against Reagan.

    A lot of of this "it can never be done" , "its impossible", "its cruel"... these protests very much echo those who opposed Reagan's agenda.

    I see the same patterns emerging with Trump. DowJones, owner of WSJ and Barrons, and the mouthpiece of the top 1% have had a vendetta against Trump for the past 6 months.

    One of the link's topics is deporting 11 million people. Those 11 million crossed the border. They can just UN-cross it. If President Trump 'fails' and only causes 8 of those 11 million to UN-cross it, that's progress.


    What you say is all true - especially the last paragraph. Unfortunately, the opponents of Trump are just as myopic as the opponents accuse the Trump supporters. They wrap themselves in the shroud of intellectual superiority yet fall for simple thought fallacies.

    This is not to say I support Trump. I just oppose intellectual tripe masquerading as intellectual and moral superiority.
  • DocK
    I believe many people mistake Trump's positions on border, deportation, immigration, etc. as set in stone. He's a negotiator and where he and Congress end up on most issues will probably be somewhere in the middle, if he's elected. I would guess few in either party or the media will be happy, but more will get accomplished than has recently.
  • davfordavfor
    Hi @Dex

    As I mentioned above, the article got me to thinking in new ways about some of Trump's proposals. I hope that over the course of the campaign the points the article raised get looked at in additional detail if he remains a top contender.

    Regarding your specific question to me concerning illegal inward migration....It is my understanding the estimated 11 million undocumented residents have arrived in this country over the course of the past several years. (It is also my understanding this net annual inward migration has actually stopped at this point and may have even begun to reverse itself.) Obviously, the US government did not prioritize immigration problems sufficiently to prevent this illegal inward migration from occurring. Relatedly, there were probably also perceived economic benefits being obtained from it by both sides. But, the US government didn't overtly "import" those people. So, there was no budgeted "import" cost to the government. Questions I hope get addressed in detail by Trump and others over the course of the campaign include (1) the cost associated with locating and deporting 11 million undocumented residents over the course of 2 years and (2) the impact deporting those 11million undocumented residents will have on our domestic economy.
  • TedTed
    @MFO Members: Discussions that involve politics or religion usually wind-up in the !!!!
    Regards,
    Ted
    Danger Zone: Kenny Loggins:
  • Dex
    davfor said:

    Hi @Dex

    Relatedly, there were probably also perceived economic benefits being obtained from it by both sides. But, the US government didn't overtly "import" those people. So, there was no budgeted "import" cost to the government. Questions I hope get addressed in detail by Trump and others over the course of the campaign include (1) the cost associated with locating and deporting 11 million undocumented residents over the course of 2 years and (2) the impact deporting those 11million undocumented residents will have on our domestic economy.

    Check out Black unemployment in the USA. They didn't benefit from competition from illegals. Nor did they benefit from the wage competition. So who benefited?
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

    So the gov't didn't help the 11 illegal aliens to come here. And it wouldn't have to help them all leave immediately (as the article says). Many would leave because the conditions they came for no longer existed.



  • MikeMMikeM
    Ted, you are right.
Sign In or Register to comment.