Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Big I've just let a Trump Rip Thread - economic visionary or economic decline


interestrateripoff
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Noallegiance said:

This post doesn't make any sense to me.

Deregulate business? That's good if it allows the little guy to compete again.

Lower taxes for the rich? Time will tell. But you think that paying 50%+ is not too much? What would you like? 60%? 70%? 

Trade deals in favour of the US? They aren't currently. They're harming it. OK so the US has essentially been living off the rest of the world with debt, but it's precisely that approach that has them in trouble. 

An inexperienced deal-maker with no experience of diplomacy? Who told you that? The BBC? You must know him so well.

Grown up? As far as I can tell he's the first adult in charge for decades, as referenced by your contradictory follow-up comment about babysitting the rest of the party. 

As with any true change, things will get worse before they get better. I hope he's given the chance to go through the pain to get to the good stuff. After all, we are the 51st state.

I didn't say that his policies were bad or good, only that they are likely to be more of the same, for the most part, although he is unpredictable and time will tell.

As to each of your points: low taxes are good, unless they are funded by the poor or by a debt bubble as they invariably are.  It's lower spending that really matters, trump has promised the opposite as far as I can tell, and anyway the rich and powerful don't want that because they are the main beneficiaries of state spending.

Lower regulation is code for allowing business elites to do what they want. That's what caused the banking crisis. Law and order is for the poor, not for the likes of them.  This is the main point of conflict between business and democratic elites, who both seek to reign each other in.  

Guess which Trump is?

The US is the richest most powerful country on earth because it has established an international status quo in its favour through trade deals that overwhelmingly benefit the US.

Any decline in the US is, with one exception, caused by financialisation and a sociopathic corporate class.  The exception is China.  

China won't play the game the way they are supposed to and Trump represents the US flouncing off in a huff.

Trump is either a magnificent actor, or an odious narcissistic idiot. Its the Republican Party that is employed to babysit him, obviously, not the other way around.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I honestly don't know what to expect from him. He's clearly unreconstructed in terms of some of his attitudes - but then he is pushing 70 and perhaps of his generation (my Dad says some of this shite too, but usually to get reaction from right-on relatives).  Obviously, very pro-business - but not corporate globalisation. Utterly ignorant regarding environment issues, but perhaps persuadable.  A billionaire who talks a good enough game to get some of the have-nots on side. Smart enough to apparently completely disrupt the political machine, but comes out with some right simple-minded ****** at times.  And seemingly, an utter narcissist, but capable of coming across as rather likeable and charismatic (and swift to apologise for the really egregious stuff).  I can completely see why he polarises. 

At the very least, it is going to be fascinating to watch.  The fact that he and Obama were elected represents a US that is beginning to realise it has peaked I think. They both have change in common.  

 

Edited by StainlessSteelCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Digsby said:

He's not just a 1%er, he's a 0.001%er. He is the elite of the elite. He's not one of them - he is to them as they are to us. You could gather the people wealthier than he in a village hall!

In that respect, he does represent a change in direction. If he's determined to make a name for himself in the history books, then as you say anything is possible.

Where he goes from here and what it will lead to is anybodys guess in my view.

One thing is for sure: there will be losers.

Not really, personal wealth only matters up to a point.

It's not as if theres one unform elite, sitting in a committee room somewhere, planning the fate of the world and comparing bank balances.  

There are various source of power and influence in the world, personal wealth is only one. 

Putin, for example, is extraordinarily powerful.  As is the head of Google.  As is the pope.  

Trump might be personally richer than most of the other super rich (although we really don't know) but he isn't, for example, in charge of a bank.

Trump is part of the corporate business elite. They control assets through property law.  Not all personally own the assets they control, corporate CEOs fall into this category.  

Hillary, as a politician, was part of the democratic elite. They derive power from the electoral process. 

The former have been in the ascendancy since the 70s, and trump is just the logical conclusion of that.  

All their policies are really about this conflict, rhetorically projected onto the lives of ordinary people as imagined by billionaires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tempus said:

Strong echoes of the 1930s. And not just the overt nationalism. See also Smoot-Hawley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act

On the one hand, we may see a trade war with China brewing and that could put a giant spoke in the wheel of the world economy leading a depression.

On the other, Trump has his own brand goods made in China so he may just be full of you know what.

 

Trump clearly sees the US Current Account Deficit as the US number one problem. He does not seem to be worried about the budget deficit so my guess it is going to be trade barriers allied to money printing to stave off the worst consequences of depression

To be fair Trumps policy of highlighting the huge imbalances in global trade and their consequences for nations and individuals is a perfectly legitimate political point.

I think they have long been unsustainable and if they did not break down the global political and economic consensus now then it would simply have happened in the future. You only have to look at what has happened in Europe to see how massive current account surpluses run by one nation with no offsetting financial transfer mechanism to alleviate the consequences in the debtor nations leads to misery and ultimately poltical instability

Given no one has been prepared to do anything about the way certain powers have exploited globalism to run massive current account surpluses in their national interests  it l hardly befits these same powers to start complaining if other nations start rigging the game in their interests

While Smoot Hawley undoubtedly contributed to the economic slump in the 1930s the disastrous policies of the Federal Reserve which saw the money supply contract by a third between 1929 and 1933 probably played an even bigger role, particularly given that most US trade is internal rather than global. In fact in 1929 international trade only accounted for  7% of US GDP  With regard to monetary policy Trump show no signs of following Hoover. It is also worth noting that Smoot Hawsley was not the first time the US imposed mass tariffs after the First World War. They did the same in 1922 with almost no impact on the US economy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordney–McCumber_Tariff

I dont think Trump tearing up trade treaties and imposing tariffs means that a huge slump in the US economy is guaranteed.

The consequences for the rest of the world economy is something else entirely.
 

Edited by stormymonday_2011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot see how Trump can put any of his ideas into effect without a huge expansion in government spending.

He starts with quite a socialist outlook - a centralised command driven economy:

Quote

We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

This can only happen with an expansion of government spending, either at a Federal or State level, and let's not forget the Mexico border wall, which will cost $20bn or so. Then there are the blue collar factory jobs - how on earth are the rusted factories to be re-opened?

Quote

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

Most are long-closed - and only economically viable with huge import tariffs - which he looks likely to impose. The cost of living will shoot up and cause a redistribution of wealth from pretty everyone, rich and poor, to the new factories. This seems frankly optimistic, but if it is achieved, economic theory suggests that countries that have high levels of protectionism end up poorer.

I think that the Trump plan will require an expansion in US government debt, perhaps up to $1tn a year. This will mean a further rise in long-term interest rates, both in the US and then overseas. Interest rates will have to rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BuyToLeech said:

The US is the richest most powerful country on earth because it has established an international status quo in its favour through trade deals that overwhelmingly benefit the US.

 

 

I would say that the US Current account deficit under globalist Presidents such as Clinton, Bush and Obama tells a different story

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account

When Roosevelt starting lowering Smoot Hawley US tariffs in the 1930s  it should be noted that few of the nations that benefitted from such changes including the UK were prepared to reciprocate in kind by lowering their own barriers to US imports

BTW Trump is not unique in taking his his view on trade.

There are plenty of US conservatives such a Perot who have taken similar stances in the past.

The main difference is that Trump took the agenda into the two party US electoral system at the right time and won not only the nomination but also the Presidency. The views are not new. It is the political and economic climate that has brought them into mainstream government. In that respect Trump is a consequence not a cause of the historical process. I suppose the $64000 question is Trump just doing this to destroy the global trading system and hang the consequences  or is he simply playing hardball to lay the groundwork for some meaningful reform in the way the  trade deficts and surpluses are equalised at a global level

Edited by stormymonday_2011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the economically developed countries are farked, credit based over expansion has sorted that out. Countries now need to put the US economic model of ever increasing growth to bed as it is totally unsustainable. Only a massive population reduction programme will reset this model. See Foxes and rabbits, Stochastic models it is as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StainlessSteelCat said:

I honestly don't know what to expect from him. He's clearly unreconstructed in terms of some of his attitudes - but then he is pushing 70 and perhaps of his generation (my Dad says some of this shite too, but usually to get reaction from right-on relatives).  Obviously, very pro-business - but not corporate globalisation. Utterly ignorant regarding environment issues, but perhaps persuadable.  A billionaire who talks a good enough game to get some of the have-nots on side. Smart enough to apparently completely disrupt the political machine, but comes out with some right simple-minded ****** at times.  And seemingly, an utter narcissist, but capable of coming across as rather likeable and charismatic (and swift to apologise for the really egregious stuff).  I can completely see why he polarises. 

At the very least, it is going to be fascinating to watch.  The fact that he and Obama were elected represents a US that is beginning to realise it has peaked I think. They both have change in common.  

 

Beautiful summary

I think in retrospect that people might come to regard both Obama and Trump as part of an ongoing process of US retrenchment from global engagemenent after the excesses of the Bush years. You can see why the latter family would have backed Hillary Clinton as her view of the US role in the world is far closer to their vision than either Trump or his predecessor. I think there are real dangers from a Trump Presidency but they are not necessarily the ones most of the idiots protesting on the streets are shouting about. I still think it is entirely possible that his years in power turn out to be far less exciting or as dramatic as some imagine  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

Well I don't think he is necessarily batting for European political and economic elites.

They have basically been hiding behind US guns, U.S. soldiers and U.S. taxpayers dollars since 1945. 

That free ride looks like it has just ended.

Anyway a lot of the ideas on trade etc that Trump has been spouting are not just gimcrack slogans  cooked up for the 2016 election. If you look at his interviews and speeches going back to the 1980s and earlier exactly the same themes and arguments are there. What has altered is not the views Trump expressed but that this time unlike in the past they have got him both nominated and elected to the Presidency. It is not Trump that has changed but the views of many U.S. citizens to the rest of the world.

The US saw to that by ensuring the 3rd power the UK was bankrupted. Trouble is the US needed a strong UK to protect its own interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stating that the US is the richest country on earth is another version of cherry picking facts for a narrative.

It's the biggest debtor nation on earth. A lot of sentiment on this website states that 'debt isn't wealth'. I agree. Applying this way of thinking would indicate that they are the poorest '1st world' nation on earth with a very glamorous but thin veil of wealth. Trump knows all the problems. In many cases he's damned of he does and damned if he doesn't. Which may be why some of his proposed solutions don't seem viable. 

Any person coming in to be POTUS with a view to deeply changing the status quo would be faced with unimaginable difficulties. I don't believe anyone outside of politics and huge business has even the faintest idea of what he is going to face day in, day out. Most people on earth couldn't do it. It would be immeasurably easier to come in and and carry on with what's gone before. The man already has balls the size of moons to have done everything he has, in the manner he has, just to get into the Oval Office.

In my eyes, even if he is widely perceived to have failed after 4 years (stock market collapse/dollar collapse/war/asset price collapse) it will have been the beginning of what's required to make true change, not lip service change. It would be a shame for it to only be 4 years. That is by no means anywhere near long enough to undo this mess and show a sustainable and societally better future. It's success or bust before 2021. If it's bust, I expect an establishment democrat back in the hot seat binning MAGA to choruses of ITUS (I Told U So). But we all know proper change is needed. 

So far, we only have his words to go on. But I see no indication of a lack of bottle (quite the opposite) and I see no indication of too many hooks in him from VIs that aren't balanced out with alternative (to the last 40+ years) thinkers. It makes Britain's future global position very interesting, too.

Keep enemies closer. He has many. If he gets a second term it will go down as one of the most incredible leaderships of anything we've seen since WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StainlessSteelCat said:

 

I honestly don't know what to expect from him. He's clearly unreconstructed in terms of some of his attitudes - but then he is pushing 70 and perhaps of his generation (my Dad says some of this shite too, but usually to get reaction from right-on relatives).  Obviously, very pro-business - but not corporate globalisation. Utterly ignorant regarding environment issues, but perhaps persuadable.  A billionaire who talks a good enough game to get some of the have-nots on side. Smart enough to apparently completely disrupt the political machine, but comes out with some right simple-minded ****** at times.  And seemingly, an utter narcissist, but capable of coming across as rather likeable and charismatic (and swift to apologise for the really egregious stuff).  I can completely see why he polarises. 

At the very least, it is going to be fascinating to watch.  The fact that he and Obama were elected represents a US that is beginning to realise it has peaked I think. They both have change in common.  

 

My highlight.

He's old enough to have seen for himself the massive shifts and changes through his life and not always for the better - to say the least.  

He's old enough to know that the way things are now are not the way things have always been (and not in a good way) - not by a long chalk and he's expressed the changes he doesn't like clearly enough in his speeches

Edited by billybong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He starts with quite a socialist outlook - a centralised command driven economy..."

Centralised command economies aren't uniquely socialist (nor are they a necessary condition for a socialist country). Trumps vision is straight out of the fascist playbook.  Of course, that's become an over used insult, but in this case it is accurate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BuyToLeech said:

"He starts with quite a socialist outlook - a centralised command driven economy..."

Centralised command economies aren't uniquely socialist (nor are they a necessary condition for a socialist country). Trumps vision is straight out of the fascist playbook.  Of course, that's become an over used insult, but in this case it is accurate.

 

 

Well true if you regard FDR Roosevelt as a fascist...

The irony of so many of the left hating Trump for proposing some economic policies not a million miles from those formerly instigated in the New Deal appears to be completely missed by most British press. The U.S. press is far more tuned into the nuances of a Trump Presidency than any  of the clunking commentary we are seeing from the UK media.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/will_donald_trump_be_fdr_or_jimmy_carter.html

The reality is most of Trumps cabinet are Reagan era conservatives so one suspect Trump is not going to be departing too far from the GOP Republican agenda. 

 

Edited by stormymonday_2011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listened to the whole speech live on radio 4.

Surprised no one has mentioned the bit about removing fundamentalist islamic terorism from the face of the earth. A very clear and worrying promise that targets literally dozens of countries. 

Surprised by the christian refrences in his speech, not a side of him i'd been aware of before.

Clear commitment to eradicating drug abuse also...an interesting stance given obamas last act in parliament was to commute something like 300 drugs offences. Underlying racial implications there.

People at work were looking up the shortest term in office of a us president as they were convinced a sniper would bring an early end to the speech. I think that underestimates his popularity in 'heartland' america

 America is now a very 'split' country now just like the uk. The brexit voting map and the us voting maps show two veey polarised countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

Well true if you regard FDR Roosevelt as a fascist...

The irony of so many of the left hating Trump for proposing some economic policies not a million miles from those formerly instigated in the New Deal appears to be completely missed by most British press. The U.S. press is far more tuned into the nuances of a Trump Presidency than any  of the clunking commentary we are seeing from the UK media.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/will_donald_trump_be_fdr_or_jimmy_carter.html

The reality is most of Trumps cabinet are Reagan era conservatives so one suspect Trump is not going to be departing too far from the GOP Republican agenda. 

 

But it was Reagan era 'conservatives' - in reality, market fundamentalists - who set us on our present course by simultaneously busting the budget and lowering taxes on the rich meaning that the accumulated difference had to be financed via international borrowing.

Trump and his property-developer/landlord father Fred, were always consumate political insiders, although they went to great lengths to disguise the fact, as this huge retrospective piece in the Village Voice makes clear. The outrageous property deals that made The Donald his first fortune and in the process helped bankrupt the city of New York would never have had his name on them otherwise.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/how-a-young-donald-trump-forced-his-way-from-avenue-z-to-manhattan-7380462

Quote

[The]... two projects, now 40 years in the past, may seem like ancient history. But they were, in many ways, the deals that made Trump who he is today. He cited these same projects when he announced his candidacy back in June, recounting that “after four or five years in Brooklyn, I ventured into Manhattan and did a lot of great deals — the Grand Hyatt Hotel. I was responsible for the convention center on the West Side. I did a lot of great deals, and I did them early and young."

“I made it the old-fashioned way,” Trump said of his fortune.

But Barrett’s reporting paints a picture of Trump’s background that’s somewhat at odds with the one he paints for himself. Far from that of a self-made billionaire, the image of Trump that emerges from Barrett’s reporting is that of a scion of a wealthy family who got ahead, in large part, thanks to family connections — many of them political. Far from an independent capitalist, Barrett showed, Trump was a businessman who relied heavily on government largesse. “This is a guy whose wealth has been created by political connections,” Barrett says today. And at the time the story was published, even Trump’s political connections came secondhand, through his father. The idea that Trump is a business-world antidote to the world of political entanglement, as he often implies, is “ludicrous,” as Barrett puts it.

The articles described how then-mayor Beame and others at the top of the political establishment bent over backward for Trump to help him develop a property owned by the Penn Central Transportation Company into what was to be a multimillion-dollar convention center. Through hefty tax incentives and guaranteed loans, the city offered the young developer a chance to leverage public risk for his own private profit — without putting up a dollar of his own.

like-father-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not Mexico, its China.

Why does it take a wiggy orange buffoon to point out that China is pursuing  bent, one sided trade policy?

There was an article in the Economist about a meeting 10000 going to a conference and not a single one pointing out the fcking obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, regprentice said:

Listened to the whole speech live on radio 4.

Surprised no one has mentioned the bit about removing fundamentalist islamic terorism from the face of the earth. A very clear and worrying promise that targets literally dozens of countries. 

Surprised by the christian refrences in his speech, not a side of him i'd been aware of before.

Clear commitment to eradicating drug abuse also...an interesting stance given obamas last act in parliament was to commute something like 300 drugs offences. Underlying racial implications there.

People at work were looking up the shortest term in office of a us president as they were convinced a sniper would bring an early end to the speech. I think that underestimates his popularity in 'heartland' america

 America is now a very 'split' country now just like the uk. The brexit voting map and the us voting maps show two veey polarised countries. 

A split country....if you read the UK msm.

Mass protests...if you read the msm.

He's got more of a mandate Bush had and look at the chaos he's caused.

The msm hate this man even tho he's won the Democratic election. Why?

He's promising prosperity to the masses and bringing an end to unbalanced society. Putting his country first. F### why would anyone not want that? 

The elites seem nervous, why?

Who knows what he will do, he's not a catear politician so maybe he won't be a lying cheating cccc, I doubt it tho.

Its about time the UK got rid of all the self serving farts and we had a big trump to look up to.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BuyToLeech said:

Not really, personal wealth only matters up to a point.

It's not as if theres one unform elite, sitting in a committee room somewhere, planning the fate of the world and comparing bank balances.  

There are various source of power and influence in the world, personal wealth is only one. 

Putin, for example, is extraordinarily powerful.  As is the head of Google.  As is the pope.  

Trump might be personally richer than most of the other super rich (although we really don't know) but he isn't, for example, in charge of a bank.

Trump is part of the corporate business elite. They control assets through property law.  Not all personally own the assets they control, corporate CEOs fall into this category.  

Hillary, as a politician, was part of the democratic elite. They derive power from the electoral process. 

The former have been in the ascendancy since the 70s, and trump is just the logical conclusion of that.  

All their policies are really about this conflict, rhetorically projected onto the lives of ordinary people as imagined by billionaires.

When I said they'd fit in a village hall, I didn't intend to suggest they actually meet there!! Though now you've put the idea in my head, it does seem more feasible than the 1% - all 74 million of them - meeting in secret, the previous idea you projected on me.

On my 3rd attempt to reply, I'm just going to summarise as this: I'm not the one who thinks they are a faction, you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.