No it wouldn't, the economy is far more stable than it was in the times leading up to the great deperession. Countries that manage and regulate their economies well are relatively immune to that sort of thing. It is countries who don't have proper regulations in place that get hit the hardest when economic collapse occurs.

Trump wants to deverely defund the public of their money, so that wealthy people can run things. This is the sort of thing that leads to an unstable economy that ultimately ends in recession and depression. This is why the less regulated economies were hurt badly in the last recession, and the more regulated economies came out with only scratches.

The problem with Trump is that he has no plans. I actually think this is comedy gold for him because anytime he is asked what he will do about any major issue he just says "Whatever I do its going to be wonderful". Anytime he is challenged on any major issue he just throws a personal attack. The debate was a complete joke for him and anyone who wasn't paying attention would have seen just how empty, unprepared he is. It would be a total disaster if Trump wins the Republican primary because going on the national stage as he is now would be a joke.

Sounds kinda like the current POTUS...

Hillary Clinton is a same-old same old moderate. Would be the same as Bush and Obama. Not interesting.

Bernie Sanders is a typical European politician in policy, and is promising more than he can bite off. Not necessarily interesting to Americans who realize Europe has its own problems caused by the same policies Bernie is espousing. The only thing I agree with Bernie Sanders more than with any other candidate is the reduction of the military-industrial complex to nothing. But even he doesn't go far enough. There should be no standing military, in my opinion.

Honestly there isn't any candidate who is good in any political system who also lasts very long in said system. It is always a vote for which individual will do the least harm along side their special interest. I usually vote for the situation that makes it hard for sociopaths to maintain political power. Having said that, I will probably vote for Rand Paul in the Republican primary as I think his father will keep him straight if he were to win, and he doesn't take a lunatic stance on social issues, is excellent on drug-war policy and policy reform, and is fiscally frugal. Also he isn't much of a war-hawk when compared to even moderate Democrats like Hilary and Obama, let alone the GOP lunatics. 

Reasons why I won't vote for somebody:

1. They are a career politican. Sorry, I don't view politics as a legimate occupation. It is something to do in addition to your real - productive - occupation choice. Not to mention that career politicians are the most self-involved and self-interested of them all.

2. They want to restrict my ability to decide my own decisions for my own life choices: whether that be economic or personal. They also want to restrict my economic and life choices through barriers of entry and pigeovian taxes/fines.

3. They want to spend my money or take in huge amounts of debt in my name to fund their special interests at my detriment, with no interest in repaying that debt.

4. They pander to a specific group or groups of people, and only them: big business, minorities, women, poor people, middle-class, etc, etc. The candidate should be well-versed in all individuals, and when they focus on a group they forget that within each group there are different entities. Additionally, many politicians are only interested in their specific groups and fuck everyone else.

The funny thing about Trump is that Republicans / conservatives like him because he panders to them and Democrats / liberals hate him because he panders to the "other" party. But in reality though, Donald Trump, if you look at his actual history, is pretty moderate and is basically the business world's version of Bill Clinton, and if President would very likely run the country the way a Clinton-type Democrat would've in the 90s, trying to wheel and deal (or "triangulate" in political terms if you will) with both parties to get deals done.

He's all about himself and his career, and is also a womanizer and loves it when they're on their knees... not unlike our 42nd president whom Democrats and liberals still adore to this day.

That is a blissful view, but unfortunately far from reality. They are stable while all of their risks and costs are subsidized. WIthout the U.S, Europe would need to secure its own national-defense, its own supplementary fossil fuels, accomodate for the huge gap missing in American consumers buying products, etc, etc. Even if a country like Germany can withstand this, countries like France, UK, and the PIGS will be massively downturned, putting the burden on Germany (and countries like it) to carry them. I can only see the Scandinavian states and Switzerland lasting and coping well, and that is because they are homogenous and have reserve resources, as well as generally free markets with low barriers of entry, plus they aren't as connected with the U.S economy as the rest of Europe is.

If the equillibrium wage in most markets is unbounded by the minimum wage I see no reason to lower it. The truth is that there are some jobs that rely on minimum wage. Usually the jobs held by less skilled people, those people that Trump calls "losers". The government of a civlized country must make sure that all workers (even the unskilled ones) have dignity, and you can't have digniy at $3/h. That's the reason why in europe most countries have a minimum wage around €20/h or more. It's better to have unemployed people that to rely on slavery to keep the business going.

Because a great deal of the people in the nation are idiots.

This is a no brainer, Trump has my vote.

This cracked.com article is pretty decent. It's a long-ish read, but has some good content contained within.http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-comparing-donald-trump-to-hitler-makes-perfect-sense/