Can Trumps economic plan work?

[hollodero]

(01-11-2017, 01:30 AM)Benton Wrote: I should have explained it better. 

Keeping with the India example (because I already looked up the Corolla cost), there's lots of folks needing a car, as opposed to here where they're replacing cars. But the issue is, even though there's a lot of folks without a car, there's not a lot of folks who can afford one. The car is basically the same price, but the wages to buy the car are very different. In India, the 1.7 million rupees is a large sum. In America, $20k isn't as bad even for lower paid workers. You'd have to bring massive amounts of cash or assets into a society to elevate those large populations to the degree where they have the purchasing power of smaller countries. And that's not generating wealth, it's only moving it around.

There may be a lot of people to tap into in markets like India and China, but I don't know if their population with extra income will ever offset the population that's in abject poverty. America — and in most of Europe — you've got enough people making money to afford vacuum cleaners and shoes. If wages rise with the cost of goods, they can keep buying, which keeps the economy going. 

OK, sounds all logical and educating (although I always feel that this has to lead into armageddon since the ressources and the planet don't grow accordingly, but be it, what do I know. Ignore these brackets).
A Corolla now certainly is one distinct product, whilst "growth" as you define it (keeping the economy going) is a result of a span over all sorts of products, the important factor being overall purchasing power. Maybe Corollas isn't what the Indian market needs, but incomes are growing, hence demand is growing, after whatever rocks an Indian's boat.

Now in your model the US salary grows, prices grow, products get still sold and we created more zeros behind the numbers of our balances. We buy new cars, TVs, magic pyramids and easter themed socks and keep the wheel spinning. 
Problem is - it was assumed earlier that US workers would take an actual paycut. At least not a substantial raise. Which kind of seems contradictory. In this case, Indian and Chinese (and other) markets would have to be growth providers (for the wages there are on a more distinct rise, so products of heightened total price can be sold there). These markets would bear the potential, while American wages at least grow less rapidly and hence can't provide what you call growth in a similar extent; hence there's a "growth potential gradient"; hence the foreign markets are utterly important for potential growth; hence tariffs make everything worse. Isn't that true?