By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Norris2k on 18 September 2016
Edit Thread
sethnintendo said:
Norris2k said:

 

The real questions, and that's a whole different level : can you generate growth and cut spending enough to pay back what you loose in term of taxes, can you generate growth enough to have a significant impact on the economy, and how much government spending cut will negatively impact the economy. This is very difficult to assess, especially because it can't be just reduced to just tax cuts, it's a kind of new deal : spending cuts, trade barriers, public investment in infrastructure, etc. It is very dynamic and complex. Simple example, if you create one job, this person can spend more, pays more taxes, cost less (food stamps, etc.), and also contribute to the economy, and that creates a more favorable environment for more jobs.

Let us face the facts though.  The Bush tax cuts didn't really spur the economy as much as promised and we quickly went into the red after having a budget surplus from 98-01.  The problem with cutting taxes is that it is all just up to speculation.  Can we create new jobs... Will they create new jobs...  Well last time it didn't happen.  I suppose if we didn't start the two wars we might have been in better shape.  Then the 08 crash happened and shit hit the fan.

The speculation fuels itself largely, tax cut are in the hundreds billions, the derivative market is currently 1200 trillons dollars (20 times the world GDP), so it's a whole different magnitude. Trump is a lot about tax cuts from the begininng, why Wall Street does not care and massively give to Clinton ? Because they want no change, the current situation is very good for them.

It's possible money flew to speculation (hard to assess in such a messy economic system), but again, you can't reduce Trump plan to cut spending, it's also about changing corporate rules, an infrastructure program (which is a lot more beneficial than the trillon spent in wars), and a change in the trade with China and Mexico.  Also the Trump plan is much more ambitious and much more focused on business than what Bush did. Again, it's much more similar to what Reagan did, and that worked pretty well. Reagan was not just about tax cuts, he totally dealt with the Japanese unfair trade advantage (cheap currency), and Trump seems a lot more than Clinton willing to deal with Chinese problem. And this has a lot to do whith how their campains are financed.

I believe that with the level of technology, assets, know-how and infrastructure we have accumulated, it should be great, we should have stable, well paid jobs. And if we don't have it, some people are fighting against our interests, and we need a change. Trump is a change in the right direction.