|
Edwird -> RE: Trump's trail of Unpaid Bills (6/20/2016 4:44:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
to me that is the stupidest question , almost in the entire universe.
To me, A Bernie guy, that question is a real stumper. Man, this time around it isn't lesser of two evils. It's more like "least bad of greater evils". I see a ton of trade-offs between them. Both of them will seek to suck as much blood out of America as they can. It's a real question who's going to start more wars. Clinton will be better on social issues (from my liberal viewpoint). Trump will do less evil at the economic and military level... largely due to incompetence. Neither of them will do anything to actually help America or Americans.
I disagree with that.. I think Trump will be bad for the economy & apparently I am not alone in that..
"Donald Trump’s economic ideas have emotional appeal to a lot of voters. But if the Republican presidential candidate won office and did everything he has pledged to do, the result would be a recession that would harm many of the Americans Trump says he wants to help.
That’s the conclusion of a new analysis by Moody’s Analytics, which found that “the economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump’s economic proposals are adopted. Income will stagnate, and stock prices and real house values will decline.”"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-economic-plan-cause-recession-000000449.html
"Income will stagnate"
It's been doing that for well over a generation already.
http://www.epi.org/blog/real-hourly-wage-growth-last-generation/
The myth (which I didn't realize as such at the time) proposed in econ classes is that greater productivity naturally translates to increase in wages, because of the production function ('formula'). Greater output per worker makes them more valuable, so the theory goes. And indeed it does, but getting their share in that process is another matter, as it turns out.
So instead;
"The last generation has been marked by a stark disconnect between productivity growth (up 80 percent between 1973 and 2011) and slow or stunted wage growth. The real hourly wages of the median worker grew less than 4 percent over this span, and real hourly compensation (wages and benefits) grew only 10.7 percent. The graphic at the end of this post parses this dismal wage record ... "
That is over a span of 38 years. Pathetic.
Anyone going to 'demand a link!' when I say that corporate profits overall and executive compensation have had conspicuously better luck in that time frame?
Actually half of that is in fact provided in the link above.
Even if Bernie! (sorry, have to use the exclamation point now because of niece and friends) were to be elected, none of that would get turned around in two years, maybe not four. People act as though a president has immediate micro managing affect over the economy at all times. All a president can do, at most, is to promote policy that "improves the chances" for economic growth. Or policy that reduces those chances.
In any case, I'm not disagreeing with the gist of what you (or Moody's) are saying.
I think that getting the somewhat lower levels of education more fine-tuned to needs of modern businesses would absolutely be a good thing to address the stagnant wage problem. Trump's idea of that, in the imaginary world that his pea brain ever got to that juncture in the first place, would likely be something along the lines of "we should have real estate litigation classes in High School!"
|
|
|
|
