Subject: Trump, The Economic Genius
So, conservatives here have declared that a DonOld Trump administration will be better for the U.S. economy than Harris. DonOld was asked just today if he would commit to prioritizing legislation to make childcare affordable, and if so, what specific legislation he would advance.

In short, he said his tariffs policy will pay for whatever it is he will do (he offered no insight into any possible policy or legislation to make childcare affordable).

Here is his complete word salad response:

Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know, there's something, you have to have it – in this country you have to have it.

But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they're not used to — but they'll get used to it very quickly – and it's not gonna stop them from doing business with us, but they'll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Uh, those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we're talking about, including child care, that it's going to take care.

We're gonna have - I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with, uh, the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, uh, that I just told you about.

We're gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care, uh, is talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we'll be taking in. We're going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we'll worry about the rest of the world. Let's help other people, but we're going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It's about Make America Great Again, we have to do it because right now we're a failing nation, so we'll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.

There was a smattering of applause from the cult who, evidently, enjoy a random, nonsensical lunchtime word salad.

So what do economists think of his tariff plan?

The Peterson Institute for Economic Development writes: In the list of untested policy ideas from former President Donald Trump, scrapping the federal income tax and replacing it with revenues from sky-high tariffs on imports is one of the most harmful. Trump floated this fiscal swap when he met with Congressional Republicans last week, but it’s a deeply problematic idea for several reasons. For starters, it would cost jobs, ignite inflation, increase federal deficits, and cause a recession. It would also shift the tax burden away from the well off, substantially increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class.

If pursued, this policy would antagonize US allies and partners, provoking worldwide trade wars, damaging global economic welfare, and undermining national security. It would also likely destabilize the global financial system.

The Tax Policy Center forecasts: A worldwide 10 percent tariff and a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods proposed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump would lower average after-tax incomes of US households in 2025 by about $1,800, or 1.8 percent, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center. They’d reduce imports into the US by about $5.5 trillion, or 15 percent, from 2025–2034.

The Tax Foundation says: Candidate Trump has proposed significant tariff hikes as part of his presidential campaign; we estimate that if imposed, his proposed tariff increases would hike taxes by another $524 billion annually and shrink GDP by at least 0.8 percent, the capital stock by 0.7 percent, and employment by 684,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Our estimates do not capture the effects of retaliation, nor the additional harms that would stem from starting a global trade war.

The CATO Institute explains that more than a dozen academic studies by university economists, think tanks, and government agencies have examined the tariffs that the Trump administration imposed (and, unfortunately, that the Biden administration has mostly maintained). Their conclusions are clear and consistent: American consumers (both firms and individuals), not foreigners, paid for—and continue to pay for—the tariffs.

Gee, none of that sounds especially "good for the economy."


https://www.piie.com/blogs/rea...

https://www.taxpolicycenter.or...

https://taxfoundation.org/rese...

https://www.cato.org/blog/amer...