-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Harvard economist Rogoff: I’m ‘nervous’ about Trump winning
- Thread starter RDS
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 45,404
- Reaction score
- 11,746
- Location
- Olympia Wa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Sounds like a guy who understands that the elite done ****ed up......and that there are consequences, like the majority even seriously considering Trump.
If so he is right.
If so he is right.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,185
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I wonder what Rogoff really knows about Clinton's policies that make him so sanguine? o let's list a few economic issues and perhaps you can give us your sense of what will happen.
1. How will Hillary put our tech companies in a better place as it relates to China stealing our intellectual property?
2. How will INCREASING corporate taxes lead to bringing more jobs to America, not just from American based firms but other global firms.
3. How will the financial industry prosper under a Clinton administration, and a democratic senate led by Warren?
4. How will our security be enhanced with Clinton's proposal to expand Obama's immigration executive orders and swell the number of refugees she would
allow into the country.
5. The Yellen Fed has led us down the path of Europe and Japan which have dismal economic performances over the last several decades. How would her
reappointment be something an economist you root for?
6. In a country where we have too many unskilled workers who can't compete in the world economically, why would we want to officially add 10-20 million
to our ranks. What happens to entitlement spending when these folks get added to the Medicade, social security and disability roles?
7. Does he believe the hype thrown out by Clinton dupes that he will start a trade war. Or is it more reasonable to expect that he will work to fix our trade deals, and have countries stop cheating. If they continue to cheat, is fighting back starting a trade war or reacting to one we refuse to acknowledge. Like the fight against terrorism we won't name.
Yes Trump is a knucklehead and says many stupid and vile things IMO. That being said, he may be closer to the proper answer on key issues than Clinton.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 16,568
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Location
- California Caliphate
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As she has so clumsily demonstrated by destroying the middle east and eliminating America's ability to control events in the middle east and the south China Sea.
And now terrorists are killing us at home.
Yup. Hillary is a real winner all right. The only countries left intact are those that "contributed" to the Clinton Foundation.
joG
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 43,839
- Reaction score
- 9,655
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
While I agree with nervousness at the thought of Trump's economic and foreign policy implications and with the statement that Kim Jong Un's behaviour seems more predictable, I believe also that certain disaster is worse than probable disaster. That is why I would have chosen Clinton over Trump but Trump over Sanders. It is about the ranking of the risks the candidates present.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Messages
- 12,199
- Reaction score
- 4,082
- Location
- #TrumpWasAnInsideJob
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 16,568
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Location
- California Caliphate
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If it matters, Trump will be going through and cooperating with congress, Hillary has no intention of doing so and plans to govern via executive order like Obama.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
That's why I like Trump.
The two-party, really one party, system is not working.
We are deep in debt and sinking fast, the world seems to hate and disrespect us strongly, our youth has determined that there is no path to achieving the American Dream anymore. They are gripped by despair and fear the future.
8 years of Hope and Change has revealed that Hope is not a plan and Change is simply walking the same path but looking at the tail end of a different lead dog.
We need a strong shake up and change of course.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Clinton is a leader here? Well, I suppose so. She is leading the gang that can't shoot straight.
She proved to be a walking talking lying disaster in:
Iraq
Syria
Crimea
Ukraine
South China Sea
Egypt
Libya
More specifically Benghazi.
Paired in a face to face match up with Lavrov, she acted the fool by giving him a re-set button that was labeled incorrectly and which he used to properly estimate her lack of seriousness in doing anything to stop or even oppose Russia's international adventurism.
She probably served the needs of her boss as a feckless and bowing pawn of circumstance.
Being a leader in no way means she has been a success. If she continues the "failed missile" trajectory of her activities of SOC into all of the responsibilities of the POTUS, we will be well and truly screwed by a Hillary Presidency.
I suppose, though, what difference, at this point, does it make. Obama's drive to create another Central American Republic in North America may be irreversible; make that, irredeemable.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Seems like having a savvy, experienced leader of the economy who can change direction on a dime due to the prevailing needs of the moment in the context of the outcomes of the future might be a good idea.
If your prime goal in any business deal is to benefit your employer, then we should do well if our negotiator thinks his boss is the USA.
If your negotiator thinks his boss is the Democrat party, we'll end up with globalist arrangements in which we don't realize the benefits available in the deal.
Do you want to see what the outcome of the bad deal is? Look at the Iran Nuclear Deal. Over the years, knowing that the deal was all that Obama wanted, the Iranians kept asking for more. Obama kept giving in and we got the worst deal ever made. Same thing happened with Nixon in the Viet Nam Peace talks.
Now the Iranians have the respect of the world, a whole pile of cash from Obama sent illegally, Korean missiles and a thriving nuclear program. Whiskey Indigo Foxtrot Mike?
The Russian re-set? How about the European map Re-set?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 16,568
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Location
- California Caliphate
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Too many current leaders are all up in this one world/one economy thing. As you can see Hillary is not against labor moving across borders to "keep prices competitive" I.E. keep wages low. She will legalize some 15 million Mexicans, and more will flow in behind them like last time. We'll call this "localism" - one big happy continent, gleefully pushing Americans out of jobs only the eternal poor will do butressed with EIC, free medical, free education, and instant citizenship by the next election.
The result of internationalism is the rich are richer, the elite are richer, our political leaders are getting richer, not to mention selling influence on the side, and our country is decaying because there is not enough money available to fix it because we leave so much on the table by shipping finished goods in from overseas. We are taking a "finished goods" mark up on the dock, bypassing our factories where our citizens used to work. What we save is spent on unemployment and welfare. There is no free lunch.
Building our country requires jobs, but it also requires money to pay people. So far the nations productivity is being vacuumed up by medical costs, social costs, and taxes.
Hillary is telling her rich benefactors, that she is going to raise their taxes. Well, she knows as well as anyone that without tax reform, they will avoid paying those taxes via various tax shifting means. Hillary won't do tax reform because, again "Change is risk" and wealth doesn't like risk.
The result of internationalism is the rich are richer, the elite are richer, our political leaders are getting richer, not to mention selling influence on the side, and our country is decaying because there is not enough money available to fix it because we leave so much on the table by shipping finished goods in from overseas. We are taking a "finished goods" mark up on the dock, bypassing our factories where our citizens used to work. What we save is spent on unemployment and welfare. There is no free lunch.
Building our country requires jobs, but it also requires money to pay people. So far the nations productivity is being vacuumed up by medical costs, social costs, and taxes.
Hillary is telling her rich benefactors, that she is going to raise their taxes. Well, she knows as well as anyone that without tax reform, they will avoid paying those taxes via various tax shifting means. Hillary won't do tax reform because, again "Change is risk" and wealth doesn't like risk.
RDS
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 1,323
- Location
- Singapore
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You are superb at innovation and being a leader in innovation you shot yourself in the foot. Your technological advances, automation ETC. killed millions of jobs. These technological advances were exported and you killed the rest of the world's jobs. Leaders can do nothing about it but to restructure the economy.
Ganesh
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Messages
- 2,028
- Reaction score
- 1,329
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Clinton did not destroy the Middle East, locals are doing a quite competent job of that themselves, although American self-serving and uninformed policies over the last few decades haven't helped.
America has a limited ability to control events in the region, other than perhaps altering its tilt towards Israel, stopping support for dictators and strongmen, and generally taking a more honest approach to relations there.
Neither Clinton, or anybody else, can "control" the South China Sea, short of all out war, and that would likely be disaster for all involved.
No, terrorists have been killing Americans since at least the 1970s, primarily because of foreign policy decisions taken that have been foolish and against long term US interests. Such events reached a peak in the '80s, and today Americans are in much more danger from the local kid with autism, a bullied past, and an easily available assault rifle. Terrorists are killing many, many people in the Middle East, and elsewhere, and Clinton's guilt here is tiny in comparison to the wholesale gaffers and brutal and unnecessary nonsense of past officials, such as Reagan the demented, and Bush the lessor.
Innuendo for which you have no proof. It's something else to throw up there though, if you don't have facts.
Ganesh
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Messages
- 2,028
- Reaction score
- 1,329
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Complete nonsense. Illegals in the US are already working and in large measure helping the bottom line of the very role models you are promoting here. There is no "flow" behind them, migration from Mexico is dropping, and in any case Clinton has never suggested an open border. Unemployment rose due to the last recession, and today is dropping, despite your "flow" of illegals. Unemployment is an issue though, but one that is greater than illegal immigrants. It is also one that will never be fixed by the sort of ultra right ideology seen today.
You have it roughly backwards. The US makes the most return from exporting high value products, such as Boeing aircraft, pharmaceuticals, and software. Imports from China and other places have been, up until recently, low value consumer items. It is inevitable that developing countries will climb the ladder of technology,and eventually compete in more complex and value added products. Short of nuking them, there is nothing the US can do about this, other than focus on R&D and try to come up with yet more innovative and desirable products.
No, the increasing wealth generated from productivity is being vacuumed up by a tiny minority of the affluent and influential; the rentier class of the 21st century. Taxes are at historical lows, and social services and other public needs are atrophying for want of funds.
The way the US is going right now, not increasing taxes on the rich could led to a risky situation indeed, a society that is becoming ever more unstable and unworkable. Whether Clinton will redirect this is speculative, a Trump presidency, with its head completely uninformed and uncaring of such matters, is far less speculative: it would be a disaster.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Good post, spot on target!
The 40% of the electorate who would vote for Trump today are totally ignorant of his incompetence at anything except Preposterous Pomposity. It's incredible how America could get so stoopid so quickly in a presidential election.
It is incredible to think of what subliminal forces are afoot in America to make the Trump electorate think he is the least bit qualified for the job.
Somebody invent a stoopid pill and put it in the drinking water ... ?
__________________
Last edited: