The Impact of Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by joepistole, Sep 26, 2016.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Up until recently the prospect of a Trump presidency seemed remote. But since the Mercer intervention and the acquisition of Kellyanne Conway, things have changed. Trump is doing much better in the polls. What was the unthinkable has now become the thinkable.

    So what would a Trump presidency look like? If you believe the things Trump says, it wouldn't be good. The US would quickly move into multiple trade wars with our biggest trading partners. Trump's stated positions on debt, would put the US into a debt default. For a guy who was supposed to have graduated from one of the nation's finest business schools, the guy is really dumb and financially illiterate. I have to wonder if he didn't pay someone to take his classes for him. For him to suggest that he should treat US government debt as commercial debt as he has done, it's inexcusable. He should know better, but apparently he doesn't.

    Most economists, including Trump's alma mater think a Trump presidency would cost the US economy a trillion dollars. Trump, especially if he causes a debt default, could cost much, much, more than that.

    Most business folks don't think Trump will do what he claims he would do, that it is all for votes. That may be true. But then again, it might not be. It kind of reminds me of what folks thought about Hitler. Most business folk believe that even if The Donald is serious and does attempt to implement his policies, he has to go through Congress and Congress will likely be deadlocked. There are two problems with that. One, over the course of the last few years, when has Congress acted responsibly? They have threatened a debt default on multiple occasions.

    Relying upon Congress to block a crazy Trump may be just hopeful wishing. Democrats in the Senate through the filibuster might be able to block Trump and the Republican agenda. But that's a big "might". And Trump doesn't need Congress to slap on tariffs. He would need Congress in order to maintain the tariffs.

    What does seem certain is a Trump presidency would mean increased uncertainty, and increased uncertainty is not something that will be well accepted by the markets. Markets eschew risk, and The Donald is risk incarnate as reflected through his many failed business ventures and readily apparent lack of basic financial and economic knowledge. The danger is the increased uncertainty a Trump administration would bring could cause a decrease in US consumer spending, and that would hurt the US economy. His protectionist trade policies would put American workers out of work and that would hurt the American consumer. To be brief, Trump is a clear and present risk to the US economy.

    Now, I'm not a gold bug. I haven't recommended gold for some time. But should, God forbid, Trump should become POTUS, I think it would be wise to buy gold. Gold does well in uncertain times, and a Trump administration would be that in spades. I don't imagine Kellyanne Conway would be his constant minder should be become POTUS.

    On the good side, a Trump administration would ruin the Republican brand, but it would come at the expense of the nation. A Trump administration could very well irreparably destroy the US and perhaps the world.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The main thing that confuses people with Trump is he not a professional politician. Most people don't respect politicians, because during each election cycle, they tell you what you want to hear. Once elected, they don't deliver on what they promise. How many politicians have said we need to work on the deficit or fix social security, yet where are we today? Both have gotten worse. The campaign rhetoric gets the crowd excited; finally someone will do something, but it was all a manipulation, for a vote.

    For example, President Obama campaigned promised the far left he would close Guantanamo Bay prison in his first term. He also promised to go after those evil rich fat cats, yet Wall Street did the best in the struggling economy. The rich got richer than any time in history.

    Hillary cashed in by taking large contribution from Wall Street, as Bernie Sander pointed out. The template that people, know and love, is connected to rosy smoke being blown up your butt during campaign season, and then turning off the fan, after they are elected.

    Trump is a wild card, because he is not part of the Washington template. He is not life time trained as a professional politician. As a wild card he is not playing by the rules of proper PC campaign time deception. Many people seem more concerned that he will be a man of his word, and do what he says. They don't treat him like someone who is blowing smoke up your butt. There is a lot more fear and obsession. The perception that he will do what he says, appeals to many. However, doing what he says does not appeal to all.

    Hilary is more of the Washington template, skilled at rhetorical promises; bait and switch. You tell the left you will take down Wall Street, yet take $millions from Wall Street and hide the transcripts. There is no logical consistency, but consistency with election time smoke. This is more entertaining and worth the price of admission; vote. If she does not deliver, this will not matter, since she is playing by the rules her base expects. This is very comforting like a warm blanket.

    It is not coincidence that Hollywood supports Hillary. What they both have in common is, both are skilled at staged illusions, by which they make their money. Hollywood could not exist on just the truth; documentaries. It needs creative liberty with the truth. It biggest box office is fantasy not truth. The left appreciates good performance fiction, and is willing to pay admission with their vote. They also expect to leave the theatre, with their world the same as before; not destroyed by aliens.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    If you compare Hillary and Trumps economic plans, Hillary is all rhetoric and jingle to entertain the left. Her plan does not make any sense in the real world. It may be OK as a plot in a Hollywood fantasy.

    If you own a business and plan to expand, you will need money. If the home owner wanted to add an addition to their house, it does not magically appear in 5 minutes, like in a movie. If the government taxes your profits; your extra money, where will the money come from needed to invest and build? The government has it. If the home owners little savings was taken by the government, they can't build the addition.

    The only way to create jobs, without your own money, is to borrow. This is not good either, because it ties up money that homeowners and students might need. Supply and demand for money means interest rates go up for home and student loans. Borrowing also means more businesses operating in the red, instead of black, making it more likely more businesses will need to downsize and not grow. Hillary has no training in business. She is appealing to jealousy and the need to stick it to evil fat cats. This is not business theory, but the subplot of a staged drama.

    With Trump, his tax cut means more of the business's earned money is retained by the business. If this tax relief is made contingent on reinvestment, they will need to use this money to build and invest in tools. This does not stress the loaning of money to homeowners and students. If you were building an addition to your house; investment and construction jobs, and the government gave you back all your taxes, it is easier invest in your home, and create local construction jobs.

    This is not a Hollywood script of a fantasy economy. The real world is different from the world of Hollywood.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    The confusing thing about Trump is he frequently takes both sides of a position and lies on a daily basis, so no one has any idea what he plans to actually do if he gets elected. For chrisake you even assume he is not going to do what he says he is going to do. He is not a wild card he is a lunatic.
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The left appears to be more easily manipulated with fantasy. If you look at the blacks, each election cycle they are told what they wish to hear; rhetorical fantasy. But after 50 years of voting Democrat, nothing has been resolved for so many blacks; fantasy versus reality. The script of fantasy promises and special affects of fear, never has to change, because reality stays the same. Fantasy cannot alter reality. You can't transpose the 30 minute solving of a crime template, of TV detective shows, into real life. Real police can never approach the level of that fantasy. Yet, too many on the left think fantasy is reality, and such a thing can happen if we all work together.

    Republicans and business people can't be successful with only fantasy. For Trump to build a new sky scraper is need to alter hard reality, which is government by the laws of science. This is not as entertaining, and does not always give everyone a warm and friendly hug. But this is reality.
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    How about giving some examples?

    One of the big center pieces of Trump's talent is the art of negotiation. If you go to a used car lot and the price in the car window says, $4995, you do not offer that amount. There is room to get the price down. You may offer $2500 and complain about things, which are not as wrong as you say. The makes the used car salesman think he is dealing with a nut with money. He knows he will need to lower the price before he can get you see things in a more realist way. He offers you the car for $4000. With this lower price, the tires are not as bald as before, but the engine looks like it will blow up at any time.

    What I am saying is, see if your examples shows a migration from an extreme fantasy position to one of increasing clarity, this the art of negotiation. Trump does not tell all the details of his plans because he developed his business skills, in the cut throat NYC building market, full of political influence peddling and old money. It is not easy for an outsider to break into that market when the rigged system in place. He also learned you don't show the competitors all your cards. That will give them ways to beat yo to the punch, undermine you, or make it more expensive for you.

    If you told the used car salesman, I like that used car, even at the sticker price. However, my wife says I need to make it look like I don't like that car. Let us start negotiating. The used car salesman will not play the same way as in the above example. He will not budge on the sticker price, since you already made your final offer in your full confession. If he also knows your strategy, in advance he can preempt the bald tires approach, by saying in advance the tires are almost new summer tires.

    The Democrats don't know how to negotiate, so they complain Trump is not giving then a final offer, so they can set up a line of defense in advance. One can see by the trade deals of the Obama Administration and how bad they are against strong negotiators like China. China will pretend to give the finals offer and the Democrats bite. To Democrats it is often more about legacy and prestige; make a large trade treaty. Trump has much more skill, for value, which was honed in the international NYC market place.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member


    You think that life for black people in the USA is worse today than in the 1960s? Would you like to cite some evidence for this?

    You haven't studied business, have you?
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    22,908 are a supporter of The Donald and you aren't able to discern his blatantly contradictory positions? You don't have to look far to witness Trump's contradictions. It's not that difficult.

    During the first debate Trump was asked about his position on first strike. For those who don't know what first strike is, it's the policy that the US reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in a first strike. First strike has been US policy since the US first created nuclear weapons.

    During the debate, within a matter of seconds, Trump said he was both for and against the first strike policy. He first said he was against first strike which was immediately followed by an all options are on the table statement, a statement he has repeatedly used throughout his campaign. Literally, within a few seconds Trump said he was both for and against the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike. You don't think that is a contradiction?

    Trump's economic policies are blatantly contradictory. You cannot have the protectionism Trump advocates along with economic growth, e.g. the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which is often cited as one of the triggers of The Great Depression. After the implementation of Smoot-Hawley unemployment doubled, going from 8% to 16%.

    "U.S. imports decreased 66% from $4.4 billion (1929) to $1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from $5.4 billion to $2.1 billion. GNP fell from $103.1 billion in 1929 to $75.8 billion in 1931 and bottomed out at $55.6 billion in 1933.[21] Imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1.3 billion to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2.3 billion in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.[22]

    Using panel data estimates of export and import equations for 17 countries, Jakob B. Madsen (2002) estimated the effects of increasing tariff and non-tariff trade barriers on worldwide trade during the period 1929-1932. He concluded that real international trade contracted somewhere around 33% overall. His estimates of the impact of various factors included about 14% because of declining GNP in each country, 8% because of increases in tariff rates, 5% because of deflation-induced tariff increases, and 6% because of the imposition of non-tariff barriers."

    The new tariff imposed an effective tax rate of 60% on more than 3,200 products and materials imported into the United States, quadrupling previous tariff rates on individual items, but raising the average tariff rate to 19.2%, in line with average rates of that day.

    Unemployment was at 8% in 1930 when the Smoot–Hawley tariff was passed, but the new law failed to lower it. The rate jumped to 16% in 1931, and 25% in 1932–33.[23]–Hawley_Tariff_Act#Coincident_economic_events

    Trump's statements are loaded with contradictions and outright lies.

    Is it? That's what Trump wants people to believe. But is it true? The evidence suggests otherwise. There is no evidence to suggest Trump, i.e. The Donald", is a good negotiator. As evidenced by the Monday night debate, it's very clear to those who can think clearly, The Donald is very vulnerable and can be easily manipulated. You cannot be easily manipulated and a good negotiator or deal maker at the same time. Look how easily Trump is manipulated by folks like Putin. All one need to is play to his ego. Trump isn't a good deal maker. He's a shyster. There is a difference.

    And you think any of that makes sense? Your argument boils down to this, Trump wants to sell Americans a basket of goods, but he doesn't want to tell anyone what's in his basket of goods. And folks like you want to buy his basket of goods without ever knowing what's in that basket. Trump's personal history is littered with examples of how bad an idea that is, you just need to ask his former business partners.

    Trump's biggest asset is he was born the son of America's richest man...similar to Baby Bush.

    And your evidence of that is where?
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    And you think Trump doesn't tell lies? If you believe that, either you haven't been paying attention or you are grossly ignorant or perhaps both. Trump has done nothing but tell the Republican base what it wants to hear. As demonstrated by my previous response to your post, you don't have to look far to find blatant contradictions in Trump's stated policies.

    Knowledgeable folks believe Trump is just playing to his base, the Republican base. They don't think he would actually do the many crazy things he has advocated. I use to think the same thing. But now, I'm not so sure. I had credited Trump with being smarter and better educated than his policies would indicate. But now, I'm not so sure. In fact, the more I get to know The Donald, the more and more I think he is really is that dumb.

    Oh, then how do you account for Obamacare? Obamacare was one of Obama's promises and he delivered. Below is a list of campaign promises Obama made and what he has delivered and what he has failed to deliver. It needs to be updated, but it's sufficient to prove your assertion is blatantly wrong.

    Where is your evidence the deficit and Social Security have gotten worse? If you think the deficit has gotten worse, then you really haven't been paying attention. Because the deficit has been reduce by more than half under Obama's tenure as POTUS or do you think reducing the deficit by more than half is a bad thing? If you do, you need to explain it.

    Yes, Obama promised he would close Guantanamo and he has tried. He's still trying. But he hasn't been able to close it because congressional Republicans have blocked his attempts to close it. Unfortunately for Republicans our government isn't a dictatorship. The president isn't a dictator. He has to work with others. It's how a democracy works. Were it not for congressional Republicans Obama would have closed Guantanamo.

    When and where did Obama promise to go after "evil rich fat cats"? You are making shit up again as is your custom and the Republican way. The rich have always gotten richer under every president. The rich were never richer under the Reagan administration too. Does that make Reagan a bad POTUS?

    What Obama and congressional Democrats did, much to the chagrin of Republicans and with stiff unanimous opposition of Republicans, was to re-regulate Wall Street, e.g. Dodd-Frank.

    Which contribution did Hilary cash in on exactly? The fact is money is a big part of our election system. Democrats, including Hilary, want to reform campaign fiances. Clinton and Democrats want to remove the influence of money on our elections. Republicans don't. In fact it is because of Republicans that our elections are so dependent upon special interest money,e.g. Citizens United.

    And here is the thing, you are cherry picking again. The Mercer's who are among Wall Street's richest denizens, multibillionaires, are supporting and financing The Donald. You need to ask yourself why you find it necessary to be so dishonest.

    Trump is a wild card, but not because he isn't a part of the "Washington template" - whatever that means. Trump has never been honest with anyone. So why would he be honest now? Trump has never in his 70 years of life been a champion of the common man, so why do you think he would begin now?

    The only one blowing smoke up butts is The Donald. It's what he has always done. It's what he continues to do.

    Trump is a wild card because he is an ignorant narcissistic megalomaniac who is anything but transparent. Yeah, that bothers me. Call me silly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What does that mean exactly? Where is your evidence of "bait and switch"? You have none, because it doesn't exist. You want to complain about Hilary's speaking fees and ignore Trump's income. Hilary has said she will disclose her transcripts if Trump also discloses his tax returns - something he has steadfastly refused to do.

    Further, there is nothing unethical about speaking fees. It's a common practice. George Bush Junior, a Republican, has done and continues to do the same thing. But you don't want to talk about that, do you?

    Wow, so you don't think people understand the difference between fictional movies like Star Wars and politics? Are you really that deluded? Hollywood, since its inception has made fictional movies, that has nothing to do with Democrats.

    The fact is Democrats don't have an entire network devoted to misleading people; Republicans do. Democrats don't have an entire medium devoted to misleading people, e.g. talk radio, Republicans do. And there are many in Hollywood who favor Republicans. So for you to assert otherwise is just plane old ignorance or dishonesty. Take your pick. Republicans/articles

    Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans, facts matter.
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Really, so we are back to the Republican argument that blacks are too dumb to know what is good for them. The fact is blacks are overwhelmingly Democratic, and the reason blacks are overwhelmingly Democrats is because the Democrats do favor and benefit causes the black community values. That's not fantasy. That's reality.

    Here is the other reality, Republicans favor policies that don't benefit blacks, Hispanics, or another racial group. That's why Republicans don't enjoy the support of those groups. You don't think those racial groups are smart enough to know what's good for them and what party favors their causes, and that's a problem for them. They are smarter and better educated than you are and that's a problem for Republicans, hence all this disinformation.
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I guess you didn't read the references in the OP. The fact is Trump's economic policies are fantasies. That's why the stock markets are getting nervous about the prospect of a Trump presidency, and rightly so.

    If Trump enacted his economic policies, they most certainly would put the US economy into a deep recession. The only way to create jobs is with demand. If there is no demand for goods and services, suppliers won't build infrastructure to fill nonexistent demand. Wealthy individuals won't build buildings, factories, and hire people to supply goods and services which will not sell. That's business 101. But in the topsy turvy world of Republican politics, demand begins with the building of buildings and factories rather than the demand for those buildings or the products they would create.

    Contrary to Republican dogma, economic growth begins with demand for goods and services and not with the supply of goods and services. Just because there is a supply, it doesn't mean there is a demand. It's simple and it's basic. But it's something that eludes Republicans like you. Holders of capital aren't going to build stuff or supply stuff if there isn't a demand for that stuff. Economic growth begins with demand, not supply and that's the flaw in Republican ideology, and that's the problem in Trump's economic plans.
  15. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Are you sure of that ? I did a search ,and while it seems he may have been a despicable person (something I was unaware of) it doesn't show his father as being incredibly wealthy.

    "America's richest man" seems itself a Trumpesque characterization

    "His estate was estimated by his family at $250 million to $300 million"
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I wrote, "Trump's biggest asset is he was born the son of America's richest man...similar to Baby Bush". I was referring to Trump's birth. I didn't write about how wealthy his father was at the time of his death from Alzheimer's disease in 1999.

    I read an article on Trump's father which said at the time said he was one if not America's richest man back in the 40's when The Donald was born, though I cannot find it off the top and I don't feel like looking for it. I really don't want to quibble about this point. The fact is The Donald was born into a very wealthy family and that is why he became wealthy. He did it the old fashioned way, he inherited it.

    And here is something else you need to consider. First, the 250-300 million was an "estimate" released by the family i.e. The Donald. So there is no way to validate it. It's not like The Donald doesn't have a motive to downplay his father's wealth or that The Donald hasn't been known to fudge things to make him look better or more powerful or smarter.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Additionally, it is known that Trump's father began as early as the 70's transferring his wealth into trusts for the benefit of his children. So whatever Trump's father's estate was worth, it understated his actual wealth because it doesn't include all the money he had transferred into trusts. I suspect he had transferred the bulk of his assets into trusts in order to avoid estate taxes. So what remained in his estate was just a tiny sliver of his actual wealth. It's what wealthy folks do.
  17. geordief Registered Senior Member

    I considered those points too -and skimmed through the Wiki article I quoted looking for an indication that he was at one time incredibly wealthy.

    I would be happy if it was so and it would reflect even worse upon Trump (in my eyes anyway).

    All I am saying is we have to be careful what we say. Factual errors can be used by the Trump deluded to justify themselves in their delusion that he is a decent man and worthy to represent the USA .

    Do not make the mistake of facilitating that man's progress (and others' agenda) because it makes you feel good to say something bad about him . It needs to be true and clearly so.

    If I were you I would hunt down that article and ,if you can't find it don't use it.
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    The fact is Trump earned his money the old fashioned way; he inherited it. That's the point. That's the undisputed point. The Donald was born into one of the nation's wealthiest families if not the wealthiest family.
  19. geordief Registered Senior Member

    He is also putting it about that he was successful from that point on and is comfortable with making money. If it was true it would not count against him.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting he is a fool when it comes to his line of making money but if he is going to extrapolate from this forte to saying he should run the country and rearrange trading relations with the rest of the world then it makes sense to show how his self appraisal may be inflated by his privileged circumstances and beginnings.

    And don't forget it is not so honourable to appear to blame Trump for the success or otherwise of his family as that may garner him sympathy from those who will suspect begrudgery.
  20. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

  21. geordief Registered Senior Member

  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Yes he is putting it out that he was successful. But from what we know, that isn't the case. Trump, as previously documented, has suffered a series of business failures beginning from his first forays into business. His father gave him the money to start his businesses and his father bailed him out when his businesses failed.

    Being successful in business doesn't count against you as long as you earn it and are honest about it. Trump has done neither.

    If you think that, then clearly you have not been paying attention. Trump has gone bankrupt a number of times and his bankruptcies were not caused by economic downturns. They were caused by Trump's grandiose and inept management.

    “People underestimated Donald Trump’s ability to pillage the company,” said Sebastian Pignatello, a private investor who at one time held stock in the Trump casinos worth more than $500,000. “He drove these companies into bankruptcy by his mismanagement, the debt and his pillaging.”

    More than that, it makes sense to point out The Donald is a fraud.

    Who is appearing to blame The Donald for success of his family? No one, that's a straw man. What I and others are blaming The Donald for is his overstatement and outright misrepresentation of his history and his abilities. There is nothing wrong with wealth honestly earned. However, there are big problems when people who run for the highest political office in the land, if not the world, use their wealth to defraud people, e.g. misrepresent his business skills and judgement, in order to obtain that office as The Donald has done.
  23. geordief Registered Senior Member

    I won't disagree .I just want to say (and I see your article -or one similar- came to light ) that we have to be careful how we present our case even on an internet forum

    To overstate (which I see you didn't do; well just a bit) can give ammunition to the "other" side a-although I think the dangers of a Trump Presidency can't be overstated.

Share This Page