Can Trumps economic plan work?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-23-2017, 03:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Someday you might learn to read English....You said Trump had "shifted" jobs overseas, I asked you for the number of jobs Trump had "shifted" overseas.  No need to get into your fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to "create" jobs.  That's what made your statement laughable partisan BS, and what prompted the question.  Pages later, you finally admit you were talking out of your ass the entire time (a recurring theme with you).

I think we're done here.

This is exactly what I wrote. 

(01-10-2017, 12:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, the tough talk on outsourcing is just posturing IMO until his own companies shift jobs back to the US.

Now are you going to pretend to be a genius or an idiot? Because you can't be both at the same time. So which is is it?

If you're smarter than me, then you understand my point. If you understand my point, but act like you don't then you're pretending to be dumber than me. 

Whether a US factory of 1000 jobs is closed and moved to Bangladesh or a factory with 1000 jobs is built in Bangladesh without closing a US factory the end result is the same. One thousand US workers without a job because the jobs are in Bangladesh. 

Whether Trump's name or Van Heusen's name is on the label doesn't matter, either. Those 1000 jobs are in Bangladesh and 1000 US workers are without a job. 

Whether Trump owns the factory or Van Heusen does because Van Heusen is paying Trump to use the Trump name doesn't matter because Trump is profiting from the very business practice he is condemning. 

The only way to get those jobs in the US is to shift back them to the US. You're entire bullshit esoteric argument is based upon my use of "back."  As I've explained, that doesn't matter, either. 

When Trump stops profiting from business practices he condemns or applies tariffs to Trump products then it will actually amount to something more than tough talk. 

Lastly, I never claimed to know the exact number of jobs. That's a red herring you threw out there. Whether the number is 1 or 1,000,000 doesn't change my point. Youve been done for awhile, but as usual you're the last to know. 

[xxlt]

(01-09-2017, 11:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: I ask in honest interest. I can't tell, but I wonder.
It actually seems that automobile companies now intend to move back from Mexico to the US and produce there. They claim it has nothing to do with possible tariffs, but it seems more than just coincidental that these decisions are taking place now - even though the Mexican automobile business is obviously flourishing.

And never mind the environmental impact (because who does), can getting rid of regulations, digging out coal under American soil, decreasing taxation for companies and threatening with high tariffs really lead to more jobs? More wealth, even?
Or (I think that's possible) will the wage level shrink, getting closer to Mexican standards? Will the tariffs lead to less exports, hence not decreasing the trade deficit and eating up the possible positive effects by shrinking total production?

Economics is my weakest foot (well, one of the weak ones at least), so you could really form my opinion here. What an opportunity! I also don't want to mention or talk about the effect that taking jobs back from Mexico might increase the migration pressure and a flourishing neighbour would be the best way to decrease immigration. Because I heard you already got a wall in store for that very reason. And I simply wonder about the "domestic" success here.

So enlighten me. If you please.

I just saw that Trump's first official act is rumored to be withdrawing from the Trans Pacific Partnership.

I have held a very slim hope that Trump may actually govern effectively, and this increases that hope.

Those old enough to remember the first Clinton admin will remember NAFTA was in the works then. Ross Perot warned that there was a "giant sucking sound" and it was jobs going to Mexico if NAFTA passed. Looks like he was right. I have read the economic theories about fair trade, and like many theories they make sense, but seem not to actually work in the real world.

Part of the reason they don't/have not worked to this point appear to be - per President Clinton - the unanticipated focus on quarterly statements by corporate boards. This is similar to the shortsightedness you alluded to on the environment. We don't always act rationally, and since we don't, we need to modify practice from what should theoretically work (if people are rational) to what will work in actuality (since they aren't rational). 

[hollodero]

(01-23-2017, 10:21 AM)xxlt Wrote: I just saw that Trump's first official act is rumored to be withdrawing from the Trans Pacific Partnership.

I heard China will greatly benefit from that since they were excluded from TPP. You're out, they might be in. Which is a bit the difference between that and NAFTA - NAFTA would not make much sense without the US, TTP might. And not liking trade agreements and not being part of them when they form without you might be two different things after all.

(01-23-2017, 10:21 AM)xxlt Wrote: Those old enough to remember the first Clinton admin will remember NAFTA was in the works then. Ross Perot warned that there was a "giant sucking sound" and it was jobs going to Mexico if NAFTA passed. Looks like he was right. I have read the economic theories about fair trade, and like many theories they make sense, but seem not to actually work in the real world.

Was he though? Unemployment in 1993 was 6.9%, in 2000 it dropped to 4%. So there's that.
The rise afterwards might not be NAFTA after all. Or it might, what do I know. Just the numbers aren't really there. You're now back to 5.3% and NAFTA's still there.

(01-23-2017, 10:21 AM)xxlt Wrote: Part of the reason they don't/have not worked to this point appear to be - per President Clinton - the unanticipated focus on quarterly statements by corporate boards. This is similar to the shortsightedness you alluded to on the environment. We don't always act rationally, and since we don't, we need to modify practice from what should theoretically work (if people are rational) to what will work in actuality (since they aren't rational). 

It's similar to shortsightedness on every issue, be it political, economocial, scientific and whatnot. Men is short-sighted and nothing probably can ever change that except for a largely increased life span. I'd guess.
Guess CEOs don't really have a choice, though. I just wonder why the "unanticipated focus on quarterly statements by corporate boards" should shape policies. I saw your reason, I get it, but I still wonder. Wondered since the financial crisis, actually. Since that time I really don't want economy to dictate policies and politics no questions asked.

We wouldn't want that regarding climate change :) Although many would.

[xxlt]

(01-23-2017, 11:03 AM)hollodero Wrote: I heard China will greatly benefit from that since they were excluded from TPP. You're out, they might be in. Which is a bit the difference between that and NAFTA - NAFTA would not make much sense without the US, TTP might. And not liking trade agreements and not being part of them when they form without you might be two different things after all.


Was he though? Unemployment in 1993 was 6.9%, in 2000 it dropped to 4%. So there's that.
The rise afterwards might not be NAFTA after all. Or it might, what do I know. Just the numbers aren't really there. You're now back to 5.3% and NAFTA's still there.


It's similar to shortsightedness on every issue, be it political, economocial, scientific and whatnot. Men is short-sighted and nothing probably can ever change that except for a largely increased life span. I'd guess.
Guess CEOs don't really have a choice, though. I just wonder why the "unanticipated focus on quarterly statements by corporate boards" should shape policies. I saw your reason, I get it, but I still wonder. Wondered since the financial crisis, actually. Since that time I really don't want economy to dictate policies and politics no questions asked.

We wouldn't want that regarding climate change :) Although many would.

Good analysis. I always enjoy your perspective, particularly your humility in spite of your obvious intelligence: rare pairing...

China may benefit, and I see your point - I think - but I am not sure a China win means a US loss in this case, right?

Unemployment numbers tell part of the story, as I am sure you know, and wages tell another part: wages here have been flat or declining since long before 1993 (13 years before to be exact, when America elected the greatest president of all time, or the botchulism of presidents depending on your perspective - bet you can guess what side of that debate I am on, lol).

I was really glad when I started to take an interest in economics a few years ago. I think economics should be more of a driver and not less of a driver of policy - but not the sort of economics that have ruled this country for decades (aka voodoo economics). I enjoy reading Yves Smith, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz as well as listening to the weekly show done by Richard Wolff called Economic Update. If you have time to check any of them out, you may be sympathetic to my point of view. You can check out some of Richard's broadcasts here: http://www.rdwolff.com/

[Griever]

#alternateeconomy

[hollodero]

(01-23-2017, 01:46 PM)xxlt Wrote: Good analysis. I always enjoy your perspective, particularly your humility in spite of your obvious intelligence: rare pairing...

I can't respond to that; which makes it rather strange that I still do. I'm not that smart, wait until I disappoint... :) I can make good points, but struggle mightily with consistency. Boards help disguising that, but don't just overestimate me.

(01-23-2017, 01:46 PM)xxlt Wrote: China may benefit, and I see your point - I think - but I am not sure a China win means a US loss in this case, right?

Sure, that's right. I, of course, do not know what it means. Trade agreements happen for a reason - countries think they benefit economically. The issue seems to be whether this translates into people benefitting economically, and there's a chance that they don't. Trade agreements are globalization, and globalization ain't too pretty for the masses. Staying out ain't pretty either. Because others benefitting while you don't is what usually is called falling behind.
I honestly have no idea what's right here. We Europeans also had that TTIP debate until Trump solved that one for us. Couldn't take a stance until the end. So, what does Stiglitz say.

(01-23-2017, 01:46 PM)xxlt Wrote: Unemployment numbers tell part of the story, as I am sure you know, and wages tell another part: wages here have been flat or declining since long before 1993

Sure, I do know that... it just seemed like the part you brought up :) I can't tell you if I'm for or against NAFTA from your perspective. I always thought... well, two things a) Canada isn't the problem and b) if Mexico benefits, the US benefits, because less migration pressure and stronger trade partners and so. A poor neighbour seldomly is a good thing. But that is not the most economic or sophisticated stance.

(01-23-2017, 01:46 PM)xxlt Wrote: (13 years before to be exact, when America elected the greatest president of all time, or the botchulism of presidents depending on your perspective - bet you can guess what side of that debate I am on, lol).

Yup, I'm certain you called your kids Ron and Reg.

(01-23-2017, 01:46 PM)xxlt Wrote: I was really glad when I started to take an interest in economics a few years ago. I think economics should be more of a driver and not less of a driver of policy - but not the sort of economics that have ruled this country for decades (aka voodoo economics). I enjoy reading Yves Smith, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz as well as listening to the weekly show done by Richard Wolff called Economic Update. If you have time to check any of them out, you may be sympathetic to my point of view. You can check out some of Richard's broadcasts here: http://www.rdwolff.com/

Puh, an economic broadcast... there's a reason I don't understand that stuff, which is ignorance. It gets so complicated and opinionated so quickly. I give an honest maybe. I know that's too bad, though.
But I'm sure all in favor of a new kind of economics. Since the old one nearly drove us into armageddon and such.
It just seems to me you just argued that the antics of existing economics (being shortsided and such) are to be considered and the policies need to be put in place accordingly.

Since you are interested and have knowledge: Summarizing your learnings into a short suggestion - what would be the best way to go right now? If you had the power tomorrow because a sexy fairy gave it to you, what would you do? (And please, nothing indecent with the fairy.)

[xxlt]

(01-23-2017, 04:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: I can't respond to that; which makes it rather strange that I still do. I'm not that smart, wait until I disappoint... :) I can make good points, but struggle mightily with consistency. Boards help disguising that, but don't just overestimate me.


Sure, that's right. I, of course, do not know what it means. Trade agreements happen for a reason - countries think they benefit economically. The issue seems to be whether this translates into people benefitting economically, and there's a chance that they don't. Trade agreements are globalization, and globalization ain't too pretty for the masses. Staying out ain't pretty either. Because others benefitting while you don't is what usually is called falling behind.
I honestly have no idea what's right here. We Europeans also had that TTIP debate until Trump solved that one for us. Couldn't take a stance until the end. So, what does Stiglitz say.


Sure, I do know that... it just seemed like the part you brought up :) I can't tell you if I'm for or against NAFTA from your perspective. I always thought... well, two things a) Canada isn't the problem and b) if Mexico benefits, the US benefits, because less migration pressure and stronger trade partners and so. A poor neighbour seldomly is a good thing. But that is not the most economic or sophisticated stance.


Yup, I'm certain you called your kids Ron and Reg.


Puh, an economic broadcast... there's a reason I don't understand that stuff, which is ignorance. It gets so complicated and opinionated so quickly. I give an honest maybe. I know that's too bad, though.
But I'm sure all in favor of a new kind of economics. Since the old one nearly drove us into armageddon and such.
It just seems to me you just argued that the antics of existing economics (being shortsided and such) are to be considered and the policies need to be put in place accordingly.

Since you are interested and have knowledge: Summarizing your learnings into a short suggestion - what would be the best way to go right now? If you had the power tomorrow because a sexy fairy gave it to you, what would you do? (And please, nothing indecent with the fairy.)

Some simple suggestions, preceded by some facts (alternate facts forthcoming perhaps from the peanut gallery).

In the 1950's and 1960's the US experienced its greatest economic prosperity and the wealth was broadly distributed. The highest income tax bracket was 90%. The minimum wage reached its maximum buying power ca 1968.

So, when your sexy fairy gives me the power, here is where I would start. I would raise taxes on wage earners in the top 20% to their 1950's levels, and leave the rest of the income taxes alone. Yes I know, top wage earners would all vacation 10-11 months of the year to avoid higher taxes, but that is OK. Some suckers would fill in for them. I would eliminate the cap on social security tax on earnings. I would tax investment at the same rate as labor. Yes, I realize this would cause all the hedge fund managers to rush from Wall Street to get regular jobs since now that that their investments were taxed like work they might as well just dig ditches or push brooms or work at McDonald's, but I am OK with that. Some suckers would replace them. I would raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. That would put it about on par with 1968, and I would tie annual raises in it to the cost of living index. Prices go up 2% or down 2%, so does minimum wage. I would also raise taxes on corporations. If they left America I would wish them well, calculate the annual tax they were avoiding for the next decade based on their previous decades earnings, and politely tell them when they wished to reincorporate in America the cost would be the taxes they avoided multiplied by the factor of five. So in short, the rich pay their fair and are still rich, the workers have a living wage and money to spend, social security is funded, and the giveaways to corporations are a thing of the past. And last but not least, investment is not treated as superior to labor. If I felt like a real prick I guess I would give tax rebates and other goodies to workers - just to let people who make their money investing see what it feels like to be treated worse for the way they chose to earn their money. After all, we all have a choice right? We can go to work every day or we can play the market. (Of course, most working people don't have that choice, it only belongs to investment bankers and the spawn of the rich like Paris Hilton and little Donny T. I bet if she had run against him she would have one. He would have voted for her - she's hotter. Alas, I am rambling. Send that fairy across the pond, pronto!)

[hollodero]

(01-23-2017, 05:02 PM)xxlt Wrote: Some simple suggestions, preceded by some facts (alternate facts forthcoming perhaps from the peanut gallery).

In the 1950's and 1960's the US experienced its greatest economic prosperity and the wealth was broadly distributed. The highest income tax bracket was 90%. The minimum wage reached its maximum buying power ca 1968.

So, when your sexy fairy gives me the power, here is where I would start. I would raise taxes on wage earners in the top 20% to their 1950's levels, and leave the rest of the income taxes alone. Yes I know, top wage earners would all vacation 10-11 months of the year to avoid higher taxes, but that is OK. Some suckers would fill in for them. I would eliminate the cap on social security tax on earnings. I would tax investment at the same rate as labor. Yes, I realize this would cause all the hedge fund managers to rush from Wall Street to get regular jobs since now that that their investments were taxed like work they might as well just dig ditches or push brooms or work at McDonald's, but I am OK with that. Some suckers would replace them. I would raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. That would put it about on par with 1968, and I would tie annual raises in it to the cost of living index. Prices go up 2% or down 2%, so does minimum wage. I would also raise taxes on corporations. If they left America I would wish them well, calculate the annual tax they were avoiding for the next decade based on their previous decades earnings, and politely tell them when they wished to reincorporate in America the cost would be the taxes they avoided multiplied by the factor of five. So in short, the rich pay their fair and are still rich, the workers have a living wage and money to spend, social security is funded, and the giveaways to corporations are a thing of the past. And last but not least, investment is not treated as superior to labor. If I felt like a real prick I guess I would give tax rebates and other goodies to workers - just to let people who make their money investing see what it feels like to be treated worse for the way they chose to earn their money. After all, we all have a choice right? We can go to work every day or we can play the market. (Of course, most working people don't have that choice, it only belongs to investment bankers and the spawn of the rich like Paris Hilton and little Donny T. I bet if she had run against him she would have one. He would have voted for her - she's hotter. Alas, I am rambling. Send that fairy across the pond, pronto!)

Oh wow. Interesting.
I would call that veeery left. Not that I take issue, but I guess many would. They would say you kill entrepreneurship. Too little incentives. They would say that's socialism and proven to not work. Your rebuttal?

And sexy fairys do as they please, I couldn't send one if I wanted (and I'd rather keep my sexy fairys in the first place).

[Mike M (the other one)]

XXLT next time please label your points so it makes them easier to dissect 1 on 1.

These are not really in any order other than when they pop into my head.
1. Jobs Jobs Jobs
2. Cut Regulation restricting job growth
3. Lower the approval rate of H1-B's, and then tie it inversely to our U6 unemployment rate
4. Tax Overseas Corporate Earnings the same way we do Domestic (no incentive for outsourcing now).
5. Impose a tax on capital gains and dividends the same way we do with labor income and remove the tax benefit for leveraged buyouts.
6. Remove maximum taxable income restrictions on SS (use this to replenish the SS).
7. Tax all remittances where money leaves the US (Build the dam wall with this money).
8. Make sure most everything we need is made in the US, and that we buy US.
9. Raise minimum wages to ~$20.
10. Increase taxes on the 1% (that would have to be looked at, but they will not be paying a smaller % than a middle class earner is).
11. Give a 1 time chance to companies to bring their "hidden" money back to the US for a normal tax rate. Those that don't and we suspect that they have shifted money out, will be audited and any money caught being shifted will be taxed at 80%.
12. Rebuild the infrastructure.
13. Offer a new type of Home Loan (very low interest, but instead of max being 30, change it to 60-100 years to pay off), can be passed on to a designated heir for a small fee.
14. Keep investing heavily in Solar/Wind/Alternative forms of electricity.
15. Start investing on how to mass produce Seawater to Drinking water (reverse osmosis/desalination or something else) and keep the costs down.

I'm sure there's more but that's a good start.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Yes.

[Rotobeast]

[xxlt]

(01-23-2017, 08:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh wow. Interesting.
I would call that veeery left. Not that I take issue, but I guess many would. They would say you kill entrepreneurship. Too little incentives. They would say that's socialism and proven to not work. Your rebuttal?

And sexy fairys do as they please, I couldn't send one if I wanted (and I'd rather keep my sexy fairys in the first place).

My rebuttal: Germany, France, Norway, Sweden... pretty much all of Western Europe, not to mention our neighbor to the north.

As long as Billy Bob and Verna Mae think their trailer park is just like Bob and Mary's clapboard 750 SF 2/1 in an aging subdivision - the thing that puts the sparkle in our shining cities on a hill in this the greatest country on earth - and they never read a newspaper or book or talk to a furr-n-er things won't change. Why would you want the higher wages, 6-8 weeks vacation, maternity leave, child care, cleaner air and water they have in the rest of the world? Well, you wouldn't want it because you don't know how much better they have it than you in so many places. The average American thinks Europe still looks like it did circa 1945, and that everyone there is envious of our "right to work" and our "freedom." And as poor a job as our schools do of letting Americans know otherwise, there is a movement to dismantle them just in case. Ignorance is bliss - for the one percent.

[xxlt]

(01-23-2017, 11:25 PM)Rotobeast Wrote:

I'd say he can suckabagofsupplysidedicks while he is formulating his predictable response.

[Rotobeast]

(01-24-2017, 10:31 AM)xxlt Wrote: I'd say he can suckabagofsupplysidedicks while he is formulating his predictable response.

Hahahaha !!!


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[hollodero]

(01-24-2017, 10:29 AM)xxlt Wrote: My rebuttal: Germany, France, Norway, Sweden... pretty much all of Western Europe, not to mention our neighbor to the north.

As long as Billy Bob and Verna Mae think their trailer park is just like Bob and Mary's clapboard 750 SF 2/1 in an aging subdivision - the thing that puts the sparkle in our shining cities on a hill in this the greatest country on earth - and they never read a newspaper or book or talk to a furr-n-er things won't change. Why would you want the higher wages, 6-8 weeks vacation, maternity leave, child care, cleaner air and water they have in the rest of the world? Well, you wouldn't want it because you don't know how much better they have it than you in so many places. The average American thinks Europe still looks like it did circa 1945, and that everyone there is envious of our "right to work" and our "freedom." And as poor a job as our schools do of letting Americans know otherwise, there is a movement to dismantle them just in case. Ignorance is bliss - for the one percent.

I get it. What can I say. I love the things you mentioned (although it's mostly 5 weeks vacation). I'd like to add universal insurance (health, unemployment, retirement), also a fine thing to have.
Be aware though, we do pay higher taxes to get all this. We get more out of it than the additional taxes we pay, but still. Americans, even the more knowledgeable ones, would rather stay uninsured and have no vacation than to even imagine to agree to a one cent tax raise. That's just how most of you roll.
(Plus, we have another advantage in financing the welfare states, we don't need that much federal money to keep a multi-billion military death machine rolling. You provide that protection for us completely cost-free, which really is very nice and thanks for that.)
And 20 Dollars minimum wage... I don't know if you talk gross or net wage (that's more complicated in the US), but either way we don't get that much here. Times get tougher in Europe too, especially for employees where social benefits are softened. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-25-2017, 12:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get it. What can I say. I love the things you mentioned (although it's mostly 5 weeks vacation). I'd like to add universal insurance (health, unemployment, retirement), also a fine thing to have.
Be aware though, we do pay higher taxes to get all this. We get more out of it than the additional taxes we pay, but still. Americans, even the more knowledgeable ones, would rather stay uninsured and have no vacation than to even imagine to agree to a one cent tax raise. That's just how most of you roll.
(Plus, we have another advantage in financing the welfare states, we don't need that much federal money to keep a multi-billion military death machine rolling. You provide that protection for us completely cost-free, which really is very nice and thanks for that.)
And 20 Dollars minimum wage... I don't know if you talk gross or net wage (that's more complicated in the US), but either way we don't get that much here. Times get tougher in Europe too, especially for employees where social benefits are softened. 

Even though I am a Right leaner, I would gladly have Universal Healthcare for all USC's and would give up 1% of my income if it insured that kids would be able to go to college for free.

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 01:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Even though I am a Right leaner, I would gladly have Universal Healthcare for all USC's and would give up 1% of my income if it insured that kids would be able to go to college for free.

Maybe economically you aren't...? It's not "right" I'd say to be for strict immigration laws. And apart from the remittance tax for wall financing and the lesser regulation part your economic position seems to be quite "leftish". As in "more left than Obamas policies were".

(Not to mention the one of xxlt - which I would even call socialistic, would I not be so afraid that he would regard that label as a severe insult.)

[Belsnickel]

(01-25-2017, 01:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Even though I am a Right leaner, I would gladly have Universal Healthcare for all USC's and would give up 1% of my income if it insured that kids would be able to go to college for free.

(01-25-2017, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe economically you aren't...? It's not "right" I'd say to be for strict immigration laws. And apart from the remittance tax for wall financing and the lesser regulation part your economic position seems to be quite "leftish". As in "more left than Obamas policies were".

(Not to mention the one of xxlt - which I would even call socialistic, would I not be so afraid that he would regard that label as a severe insult.)

Well, the problem is that we shove people in these large groups of conservative v. liberal or right v. left, but in truth there are people that are on the right for some issues that would share my opinion on the most equitable and economical way to distribute public goods is through the public sector and not through the open market. Things like education and health care are public goods in today's thinking, yet health care has always been privatized in this country and education has been a mix.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-25-2017, 02:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the problem is that we shove people in these large groups of conservative v. liberal or right v. left, but in truth there are people that are on the right for some issues that would share my opinion on the most equitable and economical way to distribute public goods is through the public sector and not through the open market. Things like education and health care are public goods in today's thinking, yet health care has always been privatized in this country and education has been a mix.

That's why my views are centrist with a right lean, but for some reason I'm considered a Republican.
Healthcare and Education are very important to me, as well as Immigration, SSA, VA Benefits, less government regulations.

And speaking of Immigration. WHO's LAUGHING NOW?

Trump Orders Mexican Border Wall to Be Built and Is Expected to Block Syrian Refugees (emphasis on Border Wall)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/refugees-immigrants-wall-trump.html?_r=0

[xxlt]

(01-25-2017, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe economically you aren't...? It's not "right" I'd say to be for strict immigration laws. And apart from the remittance tax for wall financing and the lesser regulation part your economic position seems to be quite "leftish". As in "more left than Obamas policies were".

(Not to mention the one of xxlt - which I would even call socialistic, would I not be so afraid that he would regard that label as a severe insult.)

Comrade, you can call me whatever you want - I've been called worse.