Can Trumps economic plan work?

[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.)