Hundreds of prominent economists just denounced Donald Trump in an open letter to vot

Socialism is what Sweden and the old Soviet Union have in common but that's about all.
But still, as a basic form of economic governance that's quite a bit.

The average citizen is still handing over most of his money so unelected bureaucrats can determine how it's spent and who gets to live off the proverbial sweat of his brow, and who doesn't. I consider that a basic evil and the system does not encourage excellence or initiative, as far as I can see.

Look at athletes, artists or entertainers and the first thing they do after tasting success is move their residence out of highly socialized nations to tax havens in a great many cases. I think that is significant.

I think the less the better, if possible and it's ingrained in a large percentage of human beings to do as little as possible when the state will do it for them. It's a cliche yet I feel it's true.

If government were wise with people's money and spent it intelligently that would be one thing but I've seen too much unconscionable waste and there is no
urge to reform because the money will always flow in and the first order of any bureaucracy is to insure it's continued existence and grow.

I only compare the two to the extent that both use socialism as a basic form of economic governance. Any comparisons beyond that are purely a product of your imagination.

 

macro reduction of wealth with micro increase of wealth, exactly. Idiots lap up the rhetoric, relinquishing power to the central authority in the belief that a greater value of security of well-being will be their return. The academia confidence scam is just one tactic used in this ruse.

 

But if you oppose both, you are smart.

 

This is how bias articles are written and the lack of integrity of so many of the OPer's messages.

For paragraphs it says less than 400 economists criticize Trump - and then in the LAST sentence it says over 300 economists denounced Clinton. Of course, the title SHOULD then be "ECONOMISTS EVENLY SPLIT ON CLINTON AND TRUMP" - shouldn't it?

 

It doesn't matter who the economists are anymore, we have been driven by supply-side and tax breaks since Reagan, always believing those things would trickle down into more production and jobs despite the evidence. Neither the administration nor the congress mattered either, that's what we've been living with. The entire theory has FAIL stamped all over it.

 

But still not at the cost that it can be done for in foreign countries. At least not without dropping the standard of living down quite a few notches for quite a few people. Low wages are the cornerstone of foreign manufacturing profitability. To equalize things here, we would need to equal or beat the savings a business can get by having their goods made elsewhere.

It would certainly be possible here, if the American people were to accept the sacrifices necessary. Do you think they are? There's a reason conditions are as they are IN those foreign countries that we outsource our labor to. Do you think the American people are ready to accept that here? Economically? Culturally?

I don't. Which means folks promising to bring jobs back to America without using protectionist policies that penalize foreign made goods are blowing smoke up your ass when they tell you they can and will. Just like Trump is. He knows, probably better than most since he has a mass of his products made with foreign labor, that the conditions necessary to make that a reality are not going to happen without some type of cataclysmic collapse here. Hopefully that's not his plan. And he'd have no personal motivation to attempt his plan because without total success in both execution and aftermath, he and his businesses profit less. And that's leads to one of the only things you actually can count on Trump to do, which is, never profit less on purpose.

 

has never happened in the history of this planet. Fools don't trust their neighbors but trust strangers in Washington to do right by them.

- - - Updated - - -

i asked you

 

WWII made the USA the wealthiest country in the world - way back then. The USA is NOT now in relation to population. Isn't even in the top 10.



http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-richest-countries-map.html

But the USA economically is #1 in one way. It is the country most in debt by far. It also has the largest number of its citizens in prison.
#1 in debt.
#1 in imprisoning its own people.

 

No, not the mixed crony financiers who relied on government instituted three-firm oligopoly ratings and government jawboning of safety in the markets, who participated in government instituted market meddling led by corrupt government (quasi) entities like FNMA and FMAC. And not the government crony financiers who inflated Bill Clinton's net worth into the stratosphere in the 2000s in exchange for illicit suspension of the antitrust laws in the 90s... no, I wasn't talking about -those- government crony financiers, who like academic economists generally are just more corrupt cogs in the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex.

I was talking about the ones who brought electricity, telecomm, computers, PCs, networking, software, the internet, medicines, automobiles, cable, refrigeration to the mass market at all levels, yeah THOSE ones.

How much quality of life improvement have academic economists brought to the mass market? ZERO.

Stick a fork.

 

I agree with that.
I just take exception to the ability of financiers to do much without the government largesse that has been heaped upon them.