No surprise here. Doing business to get rich has nothing to do with economics.
5
It appears there’s a core of loyal Trump aficionados who believe the garbage Donald’s peddling about economics and many other things. It will never approach a majority of Republican primary voters, much less the number needed to win a general election.
However, it appears he could certainly sustain a critical mass of primary voters and delegates leading to the Reince Priebus nightmare scenario: a brokered convention, with Trump in the mix. Priebus and the other GOP elders will then go pull out all the stops to keep Trump off the ticket. If they manage to do that, Trump will then claim the Republicans weren’t nice to him and run as a third party, thereby ensuring a Democrat wins the white house.
However, it appears he could certainly sustain a critical mass of primary voters and delegates leading to the Reince Priebus nightmare scenario: a brokered convention, with Trump in the mix. Priebus and the other GOP elders will then go pull out all the stops to keep Trump off the ticket. If they manage to do that, Trump will then claim the Republicans weren’t nice to him and run as a third party, thereby ensuring a Democrat wins the white house.
1
What is interesting about these comments is that as many writers call out Rattner as there are Trump dumping. These positions are not mutually exclusive: Trump is a demagogue, barking inconsistent rable rousing economic themes. Rattner is a weasel whose agenda isn't so much as to take down the Donald, but to denigrate the populist appeal of some of his "ideas", Bernie and Trump are polar opposites in temperament and policy, but they both appeal to the economic hopes of the 99%. Rattner would hate to see these guys transform their rhetoric into viable policy.
12
Regarding China: why did the Chinese get to build the massive parts for the San Fracisco Bay Bridge and ship them to the U.S., rather than American workers here? Look at anything you buy and look at who made it? Look at the rust belts everywhere. Who are you kidding?
9
"And what bizarre views they are..."
They certainly haven't stopped him from successfully amassing and keeping a fortune! Maybe, just maybe, those views might help the US economy bounce back a tad quicker.
They certainly haven't stopped him from successfully amassing and keeping a fortune! Maybe, just maybe, those views might help the US economy bounce back a tad quicker.
3
Instead of deporting those 11.5 million undocumented immigrants, Mr. Trump should just suggest using them as slave labor to build his wall along our southern border. That way we don't lose their productivity *and* the wall counts as an investment in infrastructure, thus helping boost the U.S. economy...
2
Steven Rattner was doing okay (well, okay, his theory that all those manufacturing jobs went to China as a sort of Darwinian imperative rather than just corporate greed did take my breath way) until I got down to the bottom and read this totally unexplained paragraph:
"In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
Odd how those high taxes on the rich during the post WWII era didn't blow up the economy. Maybe Rattner is a one percenter?
Then I read a little further and Rattner is described as a "Wall Street executive," and wondered what is his position and with what company? Full disclosure? NYT?
Really, you need to put the credentials of the Op Ed writer at the top of the column.
"In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
Odd how those high taxes on the rich during the post WWII era didn't blow up the economy. Maybe Rattner is a one percenter?
Then I read a little further and Rattner is described as a "Wall Street executive," and wondered what is his position and with what company? Full disclosure? NYT?
Really, you need to put the credentials of the Op Ed writer at the top of the column.
23
Does Rattner not think that we don't essentially have an economy run by PhDs in economics from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton?
We do.
And the have proved over and over and over that they don't know how to do anything but debase the currency and transfer more and more wealth from productive labor to capital.
Meanwhile, the revolving door between goldman sachs and the administration continues apace, ell into Bush's 4th term.
We do.
And the have proved over and over and over that they don't know how to do anything but debase the currency and transfer more and more wealth from productive labor to capital.
Meanwhile, the revolving door between goldman sachs and the administration continues apace, ell into Bush's 4th term.
8
Mr. Rattner is brilliantly amusing as well as insightful. Unfortunately, there are way too many people in this country who are just as deluded as Donald Trump and will follow him - or anyone like him - anywhere. When I hear people say that Trump's just "saying the things they won't say themselves," I have to laugh. That's not the reason these people are interested in him. These people say the same things in every dive bar across the country and they same them loudly. Donald Trump doesn't "speak" for anybody but Donald Trump. Celebrity, however, counts with the people follow Donald Trump. They don't know or care what he's saying. He's famous, and in our country today, that's more than enough. If Kim Kardashian wasn't so busy shooting selfies, she could be elected in a heartbeat! Oops, I didn't mean to give her any ideas...
6
Consider who Trump's supporters are. They are ignorant and uneducated and angry. This is a clear case of the blind leading they blind. Say whatever you think might get you elected and then, if actually elected, try to figure out what to do and fall back on classic protectionism and voodoo economics.
For Trump style leadership on the state level see Gov. Le Page in Maine. Give the people what they want, entertainment and poking professional politicians. Trump is a self made man whose daddy was a multi millionaire in real estate. Wow, from rich to richer. Where can the GOP find a man with such unique qualifications? No experience in government or working with opponents, no advanced education, no military record, no public accomplishments. It all comes down to fatuous and untrue talk calculated to deceive and confuse and there are only a few other GOP candidates that are better at it than Trump.
For Trump style leadership on the state level see Gov. Le Page in Maine. Give the people what they want, entertainment and poking professional politicians. Trump is a self made man whose daddy was a multi millionaire in real estate. Wow, from rich to richer. Where can the GOP find a man with such unique qualifications? No experience in government or working with opponents, no advanced education, no military record, no public accomplishments. It all comes down to fatuous and untrue talk calculated to deceive and confuse and there are only a few other GOP candidates that are better at it than Trump.
6
I thought you were a democrat. We want this guy to be nominated. Save your rational criticisms until after he gets the nomination. Until then, he is a bold, successful businessman who can get things done, isnt beholding to billionaires and will take America back from the liberals and immigrants and make it great.
6
The defense budget is a wealth transfer mechanism from people who actually pay taxes to people who own defense contracts and do not pay taxes. It is a bridge to nowhere and needs to stop. Cheap labor is not a comparative advantage as much as it is an artifice of political manipulation. There are new bubbles being created by current federal monetary policies and two are the equities markets and health care. It is not a coincidence both markets are protected by regulations. The last time America saw a world wide erection of trade barriers it made America the greatest country God ever invented.
Of course razing the means of production across the world by force of arms helped considerably, too. The actual comparative advantages of the nation were sufficient to win WWII. It even made for a defined benefits program that boosted working class Americans into the current engines of consumerism that drives the world economy.
Trump tells people what they want to hear preying on their fears and loathings. Neither he nor his followers have much of an idea how these things will come to be. Faith will move mountains. Thankfully, most Americans remember all the mountain shoveling that went into the greatest generation's making America great. If you want American greatness put it to work and you won't need smoke and mirrors economic policy. Where are those jobs Mr. Boehner?
Of course razing the means of production across the world by force of arms helped considerably, too. The actual comparative advantages of the nation were sufficient to win WWII. It even made for a defined benefits program that boosted working class Americans into the current engines of consumerism that drives the world economy.
Trump tells people what they want to hear preying on their fears and loathings. Neither he nor his followers have much of an idea how these things will come to be. Faith will move mountains. Thankfully, most Americans remember all the mountain shoveling that went into the greatest generation's making America great. If you want American greatness put it to work and you won't need smoke and mirrors economic policy. Where are those jobs Mr. Boehner?
1
I will vote straight democrat but I'm happy to give Trump a mulligan on economic views expressed prior to his candidacy.
We could build a virtual fence and station I military bases on desolate areas of the border and use them to train soldiers in dealing with foreign civilians which I understand to be a challenge these days, if that is what people want.
Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that McDonalds would quickly automate and employ smarter/fewer employees if the wage were $15? The product would be better too. But why should they when labor is cheaply available at $6/hr...
Personally, I have felt for sometime that the unionization of workers in America is stuck in a model that doesn't work at all anymore, thru laws that no longer account for effects of globalization and the entrenched interests have no interest in a change. We could replace unions with a livable wage, universal healthcare, smart work rules and something like an ombudsman for abusive policies. This whole idea that labor "owns a share of the profits" and examines the company's books before collective bargaining seems like something from another planet in the age of Uber.
Lots more to discuss with somebody who isn't part of the establishment and riding the gravy train.
We could build a virtual fence and station I military bases on desolate areas of the border and use them to train soldiers in dealing with foreign civilians which I understand to be a challenge these days, if that is what people want.
Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that McDonalds would quickly automate and employ smarter/fewer employees if the wage were $15? The product would be better too. But why should they when labor is cheaply available at $6/hr...
Personally, I have felt for sometime that the unionization of workers in America is stuck in a model that doesn't work at all anymore, thru laws that no longer account for effects of globalization and the entrenched interests have no interest in a change. We could replace unions with a livable wage, universal healthcare, smart work rules and something like an ombudsman for abusive policies. This whole idea that labor "owns a share of the profits" and examines the company's books before collective bargaining seems like something from another planet in the age of Uber.
Lots more to discuss with somebody who isn't part of the establishment and riding the gravy train.
4
1. The United States is already in a trade war with China and retaliatory tariffs are how you fight a trade war.
2. Job loss through efficiency is a much more significant feature of technological progress, then conventional economics.
3. A weaker dollar would boost exports and help to rebalance the global economy.
4. Higher interest rates are necessary to resolve the current imbalances in the global economy.
5. The current global imbalance exists because Mr. Rattner's industry has successfully resisted a restructuring of the banking industry to unwind massive and unsustainable PRIVATE debt loads. Created by banks.
6. Low interest rates have not helped the economy recovery in any meaningful way, they have simply provided massive governnment support through easy money for the financial industry, thus helping to prevent its necessary break-up. There is no economic recovery for most ordinary Americans
7. A single payer health care system is the only model that is sustainable.
8. Trump's ideas for public investment are significantly more constructive for the vast majority of Americans than those of the "fiscal conservatives" Bush and Cheney's whose mad spending plans and irresponsible foreign policies laid the groundwork for most of America's current major problems.
Rattner is just as big a liar as Trump. I'll bet he's just as big a misogynist, too.
2. Job loss through efficiency is a much more significant feature of technological progress, then conventional economics.
3. A weaker dollar would boost exports and help to rebalance the global economy.
4. Higher interest rates are necessary to resolve the current imbalances in the global economy.
5. The current global imbalance exists because Mr. Rattner's industry has successfully resisted a restructuring of the banking industry to unwind massive and unsustainable PRIVATE debt loads. Created by banks.
6. Low interest rates have not helped the economy recovery in any meaningful way, they have simply provided massive governnment support through easy money for the financial industry, thus helping to prevent its necessary break-up. There is no economic recovery for most ordinary Americans
7. A single payer health care system is the only model that is sustainable.
8. Trump's ideas for public investment are significantly more constructive for the vast majority of Americans than those of the "fiscal conservatives" Bush and Cheney's whose mad spending plans and irresponsible foreign policies laid the groundwork for most of America's current major problems.
Rattner is just as big a liar as Trump. I'll bet he's just as big a misogynist, too.
5
@Someone from elsewhere
”Rattner is just as big a liar as Trump. I’ll bet he’s just as big a misogynist, too."
What a repulsive last sentence! WHERE did you get the aspersion of misogynist from?
This is what I despise the most about every GOP candidate incl Trump. Just throwing words like “liars” around! Carly Fiorina calls Hillary a Liar!
We have had an absolute gentleman in the White House for the last 6 years. I really wish we could keep him until we can find someone with a civil tongue to replace him as POTUS.
”Rattner is just as big a liar as Trump. I’ll bet he’s just as big a misogynist, too."
What a repulsive last sentence! WHERE did you get the aspersion of misogynist from?
This is what I despise the most about every GOP candidate incl Trump. Just throwing words like “liars” around! Carly Fiorina calls Hillary a Liar!
We have had an absolute gentleman in the White House for the last 6 years. I really wish we could keep him until we can find someone with a civil tongue to replace him as POTUS.
5
While I am in complete agreement with what Mr. Rattner says, Steve - I think you are making one basic mistake: you assume Donald Trump to be driven by a rational desire to govern properly. He is not. He's driven by rabid self-interest, megalomania, and an overriding desire to grab power by any means possible. He doesn't want to make sense - he wants to say whatever it will take to get a badly-informed and often very angry bunch of right-wing (and predominantly white) men and women to vote for him. And here's the rub - in many ways, they have every right to be angry, because they've been well and truly exploited by the increasing influence of the 1% at all levels of government. He is simply speaking to their often-justified frustrations, very much in the same way Goebbels spoke to the German people in the early 20th century. (And how ironic that the very people who are responsible for this anger are now the one who are most threatened by him!)
So while he is simply a quite despicable character, he is, in one way, our just desserts. Studs Terkel said: 'When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag'. It seems this prediction has never had a better chance of coming true.
So while he is simply a quite despicable character, he is, in one way, our just desserts. Studs Terkel said: 'When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag'. It seems this prediction has never had a better chance of coming true.
11
My question for Mr. Rattner is in what specific way or ways are you more awesome than Donald Trump? And I would appreciate it if you’d keep your answer under 10 seconds.
6
Leaving aside the politically impossible to discuss fact the Fed has had 3 Jewish chairs in a row, the second in charge, a Jewish triple citizen, has actively acted against American interests while negotiating trade agreements with Israel.
That this one sided arrangement was deliberate, and owing to loyalty to the man's 2nd home country, was apparently too wild to discuss.
http://irmep.org/fischer_aipac.htm
Apart from Fischer being an anti-Iran hawk, we may add to that many top appointees in Treasury, State and commerce. Recall that much of our economic woes stemmed directly from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - wars costing trillions, murdering hundreds of thousands, and making the world far less safe, unless, perhaps you believe in the Oded Yinon plan to dismember Israel's neighbors' - because, of course, a million Arab lives aren't worth an Israeli fingernail...
The notion that the shift in manufacturing jobs was "inevitable" or just happened is completely dishonest. NAFTA was supposed to be a boon according to guys like Rattner. But guys like Perot always stated it would be adisaster.
Perot's business background made him able to understand things economists never learn.
Perhaps history is repeating.
But trade agreements written to benefit large banks, international corporations, and Israel - is no way to run an economic policy.
That this one sided arrangement was deliberate, and owing to loyalty to the man's 2nd home country, was apparently too wild to discuss.
http://irmep.org/fischer_aipac.htm
Apart from Fischer being an anti-Iran hawk, we may add to that many top appointees in Treasury, State and commerce. Recall that much of our economic woes stemmed directly from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - wars costing trillions, murdering hundreds of thousands, and making the world far less safe, unless, perhaps you believe in the Oded Yinon plan to dismember Israel's neighbors' - because, of course, a million Arab lives aren't worth an Israeli fingernail...
The notion that the shift in manufacturing jobs was "inevitable" or just happened is completely dishonest. NAFTA was supposed to be a boon according to guys like Rattner. But guys like Perot always stated it would be adisaster.
Perot's business background made him able to understand things economists never learn.
Perhaps history is repeating.
But trade agreements written to benefit large banks, international corporations, and Israel - is no way to run an economic policy.
7
Not sure why anyone would waste their time taking Trump's 'ideas' seriously.
3
Well “Bloody” obviously a large proportion of Americans who believe his claptrap.
But then the population of the USA ranks 26th in average IQ of all the OECD nations.
But then the population of the USA ranks 26th in average IQ of all the OECD nations.
2
With reference to trade policy, Mr. Rattner states that the "shift in manufacturing jobs was inevitable...based on comparative advantage." The euphemism "comparative advantage" was, all too frequently, exploited labor and environmental destruction. Is it not serious to question the terms upon which US jobs were shipped overseas, only to have the products shipped back?
8
Trump's economic views are not any more ridiculous than supply side economics. The nation has been destroyed by Reagan's Voodoo economic tax cut agenda. Tax cuts have done nothing but destroy America jobs, enrich the wealthy and starve the people of government services while the nation falls apart. In the meantime, tax cuts for the rich has created millions of jobs in Communist China and other slave wage companies. Yet folds like Rattner keep telling us that taxes on the rich are too high. Wake up.
11
"The Chinese are certainly protectionists, but a shift in manufacturing jobs was inevitable. For centuries, as countries have developed, the locus of jobs has shifted based on comparative advantage."
Mr. Rattner ignores the COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE implication here. Near slave labor conditions (as reported frequently over the past 20 years in the NYT regarding various Chinese industries), with terrible pollution (both indoor in industries (see Apple manufacturing sites for example where workers inhaled aluminum dusts, not to mention the Shanghai and Beijing gray air), is an advantage over American labor environments (which are much improved over the distant past, thank goodness). This is NOT the "free market" we would like to imagine operates to maximal efficiency to the benefit of everyone. The sale of wholesale industries to China (rare earths, for example - detailed a few years ago in the NYT) was largely due to the complete lack of regulation for Chinese laborers who have suffered the consequences.
So even though Mr. Trump is truly ignorant in many things (as detailed by other comments here), his criticism of the export of American manufacturing is not one of them. Many other nations have done much better than us by not buying into the "magic of the market" promoted by the Chicago economists.
Mr. Rattner ignores the COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE implication here. Near slave labor conditions (as reported frequently over the past 20 years in the NYT regarding various Chinese industries), with terrible pollution (both indoor in industries (see Apple manufacturing sites for example where workers inhaled aluminum dusts, not to mention the Shanghai and Beijing gray air), is an advantage over American labor environments (which are much improved over the distant past, thank goodness). This is NOT the "free market" we would like to imagine operates to maximal efficiency to the benefit of everyone. The sale of wholesale industries to China (rare earths, for example - detailed a few years ago in the NYT) was largely due to the complete lack of regulation for Chinese laborers who have suffered the consequences.
So even though Mr. Trump is truly ignorant in many things (as detailed by other comments here), his criticism of the export of American manufacturing is not one of them. Many other nations have done much better than us by not buying into the "magic of the market" promoted by the Chicago economists.
6
The despised national debt is actually the pool of capital flowing through the generational wealth-transfer process. If these securities backed by the power to tax, issue more securities, print currency and all the other powers of government did not exist, they would have to be invented.
"No policies could reverse tectonic forces of this magnitude, and in suggesting that there are remedies, Mr. Trump is cynically misleading the American public."
Tectonic forces? Trump cites an example of Ford which is building a plant across the border in Mexico for $2.5 billion. They are going to build the vehicles there and then import them for sale into the US. How is Ford building the plant in Mexico rather than Arizona or Texas, "inevitable" or a "tectonic force"? Its just a shameless attempt by Ford executives to get dirt cheap labor. Trumps proposal to hit them with a tariff on those cars coming into the US is actually a good proposal.
Again, I am not endorsing Trump by any means. However he has a point on this specific issue.
Tectonic forces? Trump cites an example of Ford which is building a plant across the border in Mexico for $2.5 billion. They are going to build the vehicles there and then import them for sale into the US. How is Ford building the plant in Mexico rather than Arizona or Texas, "inevitable" or a "tectonic force"? Its just a shameless attempt by Ford executives to get dirt cheap labor. Trumps proposal to hit them with a tariff on those cars coming into the US is actually a good proposal.
Again, I am not endorsing Trump by any means. However he has a point on this specific issue.
7
Shameless. That's a good one. It's the job of the Ford execs to make that decision. That's why they get the big bucks: to go to whatever morally reprehensible extent necessary to ensure the continuity of their big bucks. And the ones leading the shamelessness parade, they are the ones in line for the really big, CEO bucks. No?
Rattner is precisely the kind of perpetual insider goofball whose sophomoric efforts at vilifying Trump will make Trump more and more popular.
12
"In Mr. Trump’s mind (although not in the minds of serious economists), that’s why we’ve lost five million manufacturing jobs since 2000."
Oh yes, the "serious" economists. The idea that this is "inevitable" is absurd. Its only inevitable because we signed multiple "free trade" agreements and we allow US companies to make cheap junk overseas and import it back to the US. The end result has been the loss of millions of middle class jobs once held by Americans that didn't attend college. The reality of that on the ground may be just a few numbers in the minds of "serious" economists, but its food on the table or welfare for real people.
I am not against free trade, but the reality is the US has not gotten the best terms on these deals. Those in power have promoted these agreements because their corporate buddies benefit from the resulting cheap labor.
Say what you will about Trump, but he's right about this issue.
Oh yes, the "serious" economists. The idea that this is "inevitable" is absurd. Its only inevitable because we signed multiple "free trade" agreements and we allow US companies to make cheap junk overseas and import it back to the US. The end result has been the loss of millions of middle class jobs once held by Americans that didn't attend college. The reality of that on the ground may be just a few numbers in the minds of "serious" economists, but its food on the table or welfare for real people.
I am not against free trade, but the reality is the US has not gotten the best terms on these deals. Those in power have promoted these agreements because their corporate buddies benefit from the resulting cheap labor.
Say what you will about Trump, but he's right about this issue.
11
"...Moreover, many of those manufacturing jobs weren’t lost to other countries but to growing efficiency, just as employment in agriculture in the United States has fallen even as output has risen..."
Just as the selling of agriculture and harvested resources have become greater proportions of exports for the U.S. while imports of value added products manufactured elsewhere have provided more and more of our imported goods. The simple truth is that the theory of comparative advantage has been presumed to mean that less lucrative employment opportunities would be replaced by far more lucrative employment opportunities would occur as nations found what worked best in the global version of self regulating free markets, but the results do not support that notion. The lack of a robust development of new and lucrative job opportunities to offset the loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries just has not occurred. This process occurred without anyone intending any particular outcome, it just happened. When domestic manufacturers might have sacrificed short term returns for long term sustainable returns from upgrades and innovations to their domestic facilities, they decided in was more in their interest to shift operations to low wages and weakly governed foreign countries which could give them higher profit margins. There just weren't anywhere near enough people willing and able to create new businesses to replace the jobs lost.
Just as the selling of agriculture and harvested resources have become greater proportions of exports for the U.S. while imports of value added products manufactured elsewhere have provided more and more of our imported goods. The simple truth is that the theory of comparative advantage has been presumed to mean that less lucrative employment opportunities would be replaced by far more lucrative employment opportunities would occur as nations found what worked best in the global version of self regulating free markets, but the results do not support that notion. The lack of a robust development of new and lucrative job opportunities to offset the loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries just has not occurred. This process occurred without anyone intending any particular outcome, it just happened. When domestic manufacturers might have sacrificed short term returns for long term sustainable returns from upgrades and innovations to their domestic facilities, they decided in was more in their interest to shift operations to low wages and weakly governed foreign countries which could give them higher profit margins. There just weren't anywhere near enough people willing and able to create new businesses to replace the jobs lost.
2
I get that Rattner does not like Trump. Neither do I, for that matter. However, the author's column appears to be more of an ad hominem attack on Trump than a reasoned economic analysis supported by evidence.
Will Rattner follow this up with an equally scathing piece on Fiorina's utter failures in the economic realm, or will he be content with trashing Trump?
In any case, what he misses is that the people currently supporting Trump could not care less about his economic policies or much else that he says. Rather, Trump's support comes because a large percentage of voters both of the Right and of the Left perceive him as someone who actually says what he thinks and is unlikely to change with every new poll. That sets him apart from the rest of the field and of politicians in general.
Most Americans are tired of blow-dried, pollster-created, focus group-tested bumper stickers coming out of politician's mouths. There is simply no credibility out there. If you can't trust what candidates say, including those who say what you'd like to hear, then it makes sense to support a candidate who you believe means what he says. At least then you know what to expect, allowing you a way then to deal with the substance of what is said, even if you're not wild about it.
Will Rattner follow this up with an equally scathing piece on Fiorina's utter failures in the economic realm, or will he be content with trashing Trump?
In any case, what he misses is that the people currently supporting Trump could not care less about his economic policies or much else that he says. Rather, Trump's support comes because a large percentage of voters both of the Right and of the Left perceive him as someone who actually says what he thinks and is unlikely to change with every new poll. That sets him apart from the rest of the field and of politicians in general.
Most Americans are tired of blow-dried, pollster-created, focus group-tested bumper stickers coming out of politician's mouths. There is simply no credibility out there. If you can't trust what candidates say, including those who say what you'd like to hear, then it makes sense to support a candidate who you believe means what he says. At least then you know what to expect, allowing you a way then to deal with the substance of what is said, even if you're not wild about it.
9
It's true that those supporting Trump don't care about Mr. Rattner's points. But if his remarks help keep the number or percentage of supporters at the current level then he's doing us all a big favor.
2
It's odd to me that people consider Trump a successful businessman. He went bankrupt four times, and in the recent debate crowed about how he took advantage of the law to benefit himself and cause serious damage to his investors. He was born with pretty much the money he has now, which is actually less than a billion by most measures; he owes too much to have his assets total over a billion. A lot of his ventures have been miserable failures. His main thing has been being an entertaining bully of a buffoon, and his main fame has been as a reality TV shouting pumpkin. So the fact that his statements make no economic sense is perfectly appropriate for what he is.
31
and yet he has more practical experience running a business than any other candidate, many of whom have known little else but feeding at the public trough.
I love Trump. What a windfall he has been to comedians and sane people when we are weary and need something to laugh at. Because trying to make sense of his rhetoric is nothing a sane person should even try doing.
What alarms me is not Trump. What alarms me are the people that support him, because here there is no clearer indication that some people absolutely refuse to think.
I thought I had seen enough caricatures in politics. Surely, I thought, we will swing back towards moderate policies and learning how to work together. Nope. Trump and many of his peers just continue to push their merry way, and the unthinking masses allow their own destruction whilst valiantly defending it.
What alarms me is not Trump. What alarms me are the people that support him, because here there is no clearer indication that some people absolutely refuse to think.
I thought I had seen enough caricatures in politics. Surely, I thought, we will swing back towards moderate policies and learning how to work together. Nope. Trump and many of his peers just continue to push their merry way, and the unthinking masses allow their own destruction whilst valiantly defending it.
1
Donald Trump's views are imprecise, and yes, they are a melange of populism and conservatism. But the imprecision provides a temptation for journalists like Rattner to accuse Trump of positions he most likely does not actually possess.
Trump's campaign is built on two principles. He says what he means, even when it is not "politically correct." He tries to position himself in the center of the political spectrum, as a populist who adheres to part of the conservative agenda, but not all.
Yes, Trump says the Chinese have been playing us for fools. Were the loss of manufacturing jobs to China inevitable as Rattner suggests? Maybe, but the US could have responded better. Economists argued that "free trade" would lift all boats. Not only would China excel in manufacturing, but the US would excel in the more "high value-added jobs."
To some extent that was true. The US has the most innovative high-tech companies in the world, Apple, Google, and so forth. But loss of manufacturing should have pushed the US to stress higher education more.
Yet liberals have encouraged the poor to have too many children with welfare policies that provide incentives for large families, and have encouraged an "open border" policy which increases the number of immigrant children.
Thus states like California shift resources from higher education to K12 and prisons. And tuition in universities has soared.
Even if he is a flawed candidate, Trump understands that illegal immigration is wrong.
Trump's campaign is built on two principles. He says what he means, even when it is not "politically correct." He tries to position himself in the center of the political spectrum, as a populist who adheres to part of the conservative agenda, but not all.
Yes, Trump says the Chinese have been playing us for fools. Were the loss of manufacturing jobs to China inevitable as Rattner suggests? Maybe, but the US could have responded better. Economists argued that "free trade" would lift all boats. Not only would China excel in manufacturing, but the US would excel in the more "high value-added jobs."
To some extent that was true. The US has the most innovative high-tech companies in the world, Apple, Google, and so forth. But loss of manufacturing should have pushed the US to stress higher education more.
Yet liberals have encouraged the poor to have too many children with welfare policies that provide incentives for large families, and have encouraged an "open border" policy which increases the number of immigrant children.
Thus states like California shift resources from higher education to K12 and prisons. And tuition in universities has soared.
Even if he is a flawed candidate, Trump understands that illegal immigration is wrong.
3
If Obama didn't mean anything he said while campaigning, why should we believe what Trump says, or indeed what any other politician says during campaigning? Do we believe TV ads?
Unfortunately, the answer is yes, we do believe all the garbage spewing from our TV sets including pol ads. We will continue to be duped as long as we don't wise up.
Unfortunately, the answer is yes, we do believe all the garbage spewing from our TV sets including pol ads. We will continue to be duped as long as we don't wise up.
1
I can't see myself voting for Trump in a million years, but Steven Rattner has come closer than anyone else to convincing me to do so.
A shift in manufacturing jobs may have been inevitable, but it did not have to happen with no protection for workers and kid-glove handling for banksters who crash the economy. I'm a bit leery of tariffs, but a weak dollar would in fact help the U.S. manufacturing sector. And, as several other commenters have noted, a wealth tax doesn't sound the least bit crazy.
A shift in manufacturing jobs may have been inevitable, but it did not have to happen with no protection for workers and kid-glove handling for banksters who crash the economy. I'm a bit leery of tariffs, but a weak dollar would in fact help the U.S. manufacturing sector. And, as several other commenters have noted, a wealth tax doesn't sound the least bit crazy.
7
Hypothesis contrary to fact when you state that Trump is a successful businessman. Trump inherited $300 million. His current worth has barely kept up with inflation.
4
Devoid of tariffs or Balance Trade, when countries like China devalue their currency, US manufacturing jobs will continue to shrink further.
More than 11000 factories have been shuttered, over 750,000 jobs have been lost to “Free Trade”. None of the “economists” have any solution to address the job loss. Our manufacturing know-how and its associated eco-system have been decimated by various factors including automation and off-shoring. Even high technology industries are under assault; take for example, IBM unveiled Personal Computers in the early 1980s; by 2000, within a generation, they transferred the technology to Lenovo. One can find similar cases in low end servers (IBM → Lenovo) and smart phones (Motorola → Google → Lenovo). In software maintenance, off-shoring of well paying jobs is getting more common. We have lost jobs in major industries in the US and we see comparable increase in jobs in lower cost countries. Countries that can manipulate their exchange rate, obtain newer technology at favorable terms, and treat their workers like indentured servants, seem to acquire “Comparative Advantage”.
The job situation is so bad, that a large percentage of new college graduates are underemployed, and are sinking deeper into the morass of high educational debt.
What is Mr. Rattner's sustainable solution?
More than 11000 factories have been shuttered, over 750,000 jobs have been lost to “Free Trade”. None of the “economists” have any solution to address the job loss. Our manufacturing know-how and its associated eco-system have been decimated by various factors including automation and off-shoring. Even high technology industries are under assault; take for example, IBM unveiled Personal Computers in the early 1980s; by 2000, within a generation, they transferred the technology to Lenovo. One can find similar cases in low end servers (IBM → Lenovo) and smart phones (Motorola → Google → Lenovo). In software maintenance, off-shoring of well paying jobs is getting more common. We have lost jobs in major industries in the US and we see comparable increase in jobs in lower cost countries. Countries that can manipulate their exchange rate, obtain newer technology at favorable terms, and treat their workers like indentured servants, seem to acquire “Comparative Advantage”.
The job situation is so bad, that a large percentage of new college graduates are underemployed, and are sinking deeper into the morass of high educational debt.
What is Mr. Rattner's sustainable solution?
3
Donald Trump is obviously a huge egotist, and I personally don't think he would make a very good president. That being said, I am glad that he is running, and not just because of the entertainment value. Some of what he says is true, especially that the Chinese are ripping us off, and we're letting them do it. The reason that people resonate with him is that they intuitively understand that the US has major long-term economic problems, and they are angry that appropriate steps are not being taken to solve them. Mr. Rattner's statement that "no policies could reverse tectonic forces of this magnitude, and in suggesting there are remedies, Mr. Trump is cynically misleading the American public" is absolutely 100% FALSE in my opinion. In fact, we as a country MUST make major changes to reverse the deteriorating situation, or we are certain to have a far lower standard of living a few decades from now. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT EVERYONE READ THE EXCELLENT BOOK ON THIS SUBJECT BY DAMBISA MOYO, "HOW THE WEST WAS LOST". In a totally non-political fashion, she clearly explains the problems the U.S. is facing, and proposes how to solve them. While there are many causes for our economic decline, the number one cause is six decades of very poor policies by the U.S. government. The economic system was created for us, not us for the economic system. We can and must change it.
6
On an inflation adjusted basis Trump has just about taken a large fortune that he inherited from his father and turned it into a smaller fortune. Unfortunately, the only thing that separates his craziness from the other republicans is in style and not substance.
3
"I guess a foolish inconsistency can also be the hobgoblin of a big mind."
Yes, I think we actually need Donald Trump in this race to highlight some of the most ridiculous ideas. That way we can search for the best ideas.
As Thomas Paine put it, over 200 years ago:
"When opinions are free (in matters of government and religion) truth will finally and powerfully prevail".
I say to the Donald, keep talking! May the best ideas win!
===========================================
Yes, I think we actually need Donald Trump in this race to highlight some of the most ridiculous ideas. That way we can search for the best ideas.
As Thomas Paine put it, over 200 years ago:
"When opinions are free (in matters of government and religion) truth will finally and powerfully prevail".
I say to the Donald, keep talking! May the best ideas win!
===========================================
3
I think Trump just makes it up as he goes along and assumes he still knows more than his audience, especially if he throws in a dose of Wharton School, how smart he is, what a great business builder he is, and some weary simplifications about China, Mexico, and the inability of the US government to run anything, let alone a business.
Thinking out loud doesn't make for consistent policy. Which is probably why previous videos can be found refuting current positions with the exact opposite at one time or another. Since the man can't resist a microphone--which would have to be pried from his cold, dead hands by Black Lives Matter or anyone, like the NRA likes to say about guns--it goes without saying that internal or external consistency isn't Trump's game.
Whatever. Mr. Rattner is looking for some substance in an area in which there is none, with a man who just burbles what he thinks in the moment. Better he cast his net to more serious GOP contenders and their reams of policy reports and prescriptions for an easier target.
Thinking out loud doesn't make for consistent policy. Which is probably why previous videos can be found refuting current positions with the exact opposite at one time or another. Since the man can't resist a microphone--which would have to be pried from his cold, dead hands by Black Lives Matter or anyone, like the NRA likes to say about guns--it goes without saying that internal or external consistency isn't Trump's game.
Whatever. Mr. Rattner is looking for some substance in an area in which there is none, with a man who just burbles what he thinks in the moment. Better he cast his net to more serious GOP contenders and their reams of policy reports and prescriptions for an easier target.
1
I do wonder in what universe Mr. Rattner lives. Before and after "what's good for General Motors is good for the country" it has been usual for businessmen not to understand economics. And commentary on the matter has long been an area of comment for economists and economic historians. Attempts to corner or control the market, the history of booms and busts, on and on.
3
Just recently Trump said "Politicians are having gun on our dime while the world is burning", using images to say he was referring to Obama and Hillary. Of course Mr. Rattner wants him off the stage because he is afraid that too many people will believe Trump, and throw the liberals out of government.
But here we get serious. NYT argues that Trump doesn't subscribe to "accepted economic thought". Accepted by whom? By the liberal economists? Who are content with massive unemployment (the 5+% figure doesn't represent reality anyway) and economic growth stuck at something like 2% or below? Who are content with the massive government and its choking regulations? Who don't mind watching the number of poor rising? The list of unworkables of this "accepted economic thought" continues.
True, Trump hasn't provided any plan of his own, and the little tidbits can be taken apart easily. But the accpted thought doesn't work either, and one can't blame people for wanting to have it changed. By Trump? Maybe not, but at least he draws peoples' attention to the failures of the liberal agenda.
But here we get serious. NYT argues that Trump doesn't subscribe to "accepted economic thought". Accepted by whom? By the liberal economists? Who are content with massive unemployment (the 5+% figure doesn't represent reality anyway) and economic growth stuck at something like 2% or below? Who are content with the massive government and its choking regulations? Who don't mind watching the number of poor rising? The list of unworkables of this "accepted economic thought" continues.
True, Trump hasn't provided any plan of his own, and the little tidbits can be taken apart easily. But the accpted thought doesn't work either, and one can't blame people for wanting to have it changed. By Trump? Maybe not, but at least he draws peoples' attention to the failures of the liberal agenda.
4
Despite his lack of coherent policies, complete lack of statesmanship and his pattern of insulting individuals as an argument against their ideas and his willingness to tar the traits of some individuals to a an entire sex of nationality he still polls 20+% of Republican primary voters. It's not Mr Trump who worries me as he will never be President. Its the people consider him worthy of the office that concern me.
4
while I generally agree with Mr Rattner's take - He is dead wrong about "In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression." This money would have come from people who have money in assets that are not for the most part generating economic activity. With the reduction of the Federal Debt by $5 trillon, it would have provided the stimulus needed to dig out of the 2008 collapse. We are still suffering from our Congress's 1/2 hearted stimulus. The lack of block grants to the states in 09 and 10 resulted in almost 1 million lost jobs as the states cut such unneeded services like teachers, fireman, and polics.
6
Absolutely. Think of it as a windfall tax - the rich certainly haven't earned most of their wealth in the conventional way and much of it has been grossly undertaxed. For every $1 million stashed offshore in tax havens think how much regeneration that $1 million would buy instead if spent by government on infrastructure etc. It should be a no brainer but we're trapped in a system that perpetuates and widens inequality and lack of development. Some of the rich - Buffett for example - have been virtually begging to pay more tax.
4
Take it from Steve Wynn: "If you want to get rich in casinos, you have to own them."
2
Sounds like nothing more than a calculated "hatchet-job" written to defame Donald Trump by an admitted cheater and someone who has been banned from the securities industry for being a crook.
8
How about responding to Mr. Rattner's assertions rather than character assassination?
3
Did you hear the one about the death of the GOP? Apparently, the Republican Party was brutally raped by Citizens United. But because the Party had made abortion illegal even to save the life of the mother, the GOP was forced to die while giving birth to its rapist's child. As friends and family looked on in helpless horror, The Grand Old Party was laid to rest. And the plump pink baby was named.... Donald Trump. Cue "Oh Fortuna".
2
Mr. Trump wouldn't even be allowed to enter the fray of republican primaries if the RNC had a rule book, let alone were even had control of these debates. But the RNC chose to believe their own non-reality based babble and decided to make it a "free-market" based primary by what, selling it to Fox news? I wonder if a stipulation was made some time ago to removed the "Fair and Balanced" logo from their news shows.
3
The model parliamentary democracy negotiated for West Germany after WW II sets up a whole system of regular party membership and payment of dues by members to participate in the party's candidate-nomination process.
Although I certainly hope the U.S. does not elect Trump, not my business as I am Canadian, I think some of these thoughts are actually more correct than this gentleman makes them seem.
1. Another tenet of his trade policy would be a weaker dollar, which would discourage imports by making them more expensive and increase the competitiveness of American exports.
This can be done outside of interest rates and would have a secondary effect of directly impacting the Chinese, the largest holder of Dollars. Print more of them and use them to pay off outstanding Government Bonds. Another effect of this would be inflation forcing businesses to start providing wage increases as well as diminishing the wealth of individuals and corporations hording capital.
2. At various times, he has proposed levies of 25 percent on imports from China and 35 percent on Ford vehicles assembled in Mexico. That would significantly raise prices for Americans and unleash retaliatory moves.
Do Americans care if either China or Mexico raise tariffs on American goods? What's the ratio of goods imported to exported for both these countries. I can't think that this would even come close to be equal.
It's about time that policies that promote and protect middle class jobs become the primary consideration of politicians and not the interests of the moneyed few.
1. Another tenet of his trade policy would be a weaker dollar, which would discourage imports by making them more expensive and increase the competitiveness of American exports.
This can be done outside of interest rates and would have a secondary effect of directly impacting the Chinese, the largest holder of Dollars. Print more of them and use them to pay off outstanding Government Bonds. Another effect of this would be inflation forcing businesses to start providing wage increases as well as diminishing the wealth of individuals and corporations hording capital.
2. At various times, he has proposed levies of 25 percent on imports from China and 35 percent on Ford vehicles assembled in Mexico. That would significantly raise prices for Americans and unleash retaliatory moves.
Do Americans care if either China or Mexico raise tariffs on American goods? What's the ratio of goods imported to exported for both these countries. I can't think that this would even come close to be equal.
It's about time that policies that promote and protect middle class jobs become the primary consideration of politicians and not the interests of the moneyed few.
3
Donald Trump is not really running for President--he is as aghast and surprised at the rest of us at how well he's doing so far. He makes his money as a clown. It's his job and his calling. No one will be happier than him when he falls in the polls but can still be on stage doing his schtick.
5
I've heard many people say this, but I don't believe it.
He has 11 full time staffers in Iowa.
He is in it to win, and he may very well run as an independent
in the general election if the GOP doesn't give him something.
Perhaps renaming to the Trump-Republican party.
He has 11 full time staffers in Iowa.
He is in it to win, and he may very well run as an independent
in the general election if the GOP doesn't give him something.
Perhaps renaming to the Trump-Republican party.
1
Commenting on 2 issues raised:
"... interest rates near zero is certain to unleash asset bubbles and rampant inflation."
Have you looked at real estate prices in major cities? Of course there is an asset bubble. Who does that hurt? Homebuyers, renters. Who does it benefit? Lenders/bankers/owners. In addition, low interest rates benefit Wall Street. This is bubble-nomics. The US ($17 trillion GDP) bubble may not pop like Greece ($238 billion), because for example, our economy is 71x larger, and can withstand far more abuse before a crash. In the meanwhile, those not at the top must pay for the downsides.
" 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich ... would [have] plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
This is not justified with balanced reasons. Of course it may cause an only temporary downturn on Wall Street as the very rich may have to sell off liquid assets in hedge funds/stocks, but provide benefits in other ways.
The US Economy is large & complex. It has winners and losers. The current rules are strongly tilted in favor of the investment class/Wall Street winning against everyone else. Wall Street's economic ideology controls DC's economic policy, and strongly favors those who extract wealth by moving around paper money, rather than other sectors.
"... interest rates near zero is certain to unleash asset bubbles and rampant inflation."
Have you looked at real estate prices in major cities? Of course there is an asset bubble. Who does that hurt? Homebuyers, renters. Who does it benefit? Lenders/bankers/owners. In addition, low interest rates benefit Wall Street. This is bubble-nomics. The US ($17 trillion GDP) bubble may not pop like Greece ($238 billion), because for example, our economy is 71x larger, and can withstand far more abuse before a crash. In the meanwhile, those not at the top must pay for the downsides.
" 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich ... would [have] plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
This is not justified with balanced reasons. Of course it may cause an only temporary downturn on Wall Street as the very rich may have to sell off liquid assets in hedge funds/stocks, but provide benefits in other ways.
The US Economy is large & complex. It has winners and losers. The current rules are strongly tilted in favor of the investment class/Wall Street winning against everyone else. Wall Street's economic ideology controls DC's economic policy, and strongly favors those who extract wealth by moving around paper money, rather than other sectors.
4
I completely agree with Mr. Rattner's last line in his column. I too will be very very happy when I don't see Donald Trump on TV anymore extolling his amazing self. He just has talk and nothing else.
2
Accurate as Mr. Rattner's observations might be, they are completely lost on Trump and his supporters. He and they are impervious to the facts. As was much in evidence at last week's so-called "debate," Trump (unlike the rest of the Republican field) doesn't nervously dissemble or try to change the subject when confronted with a difficult question - he simply declares in his imperious manner whatever comes into his mind and then moves on. He doesn't worry whether what he says today will come back to haunt him in the general election. Everyone (including those who support him) know that he's a blowhard. Maybe that's the secret to his appeal, that he make no effort to be anything other than what he is. But it's a damning indictment of the present state of our electoral system.
4
Mr. Rattner, why would you especially expect a billionaire businessman to understand economics? Most businessmen of that ilk are basically salesmen.
1
It's bluster. Hey. Who knows; maybe he's broke and it's all a bluff. Still, it is not impossible that we could witness the happy spectacle of Trump v.---Sanders??--Yow! Can you say 1968? The only question then: Is there any possibility that Republicans in Congress would cater to president Trump? This could get interesting.
One disappointment with Rattner. This idea that "For centuries, as countries have developed, the locus of jobs has shifted based on comparative advantage." hasn't been true for many decades and probably was never true. It has shifted based on cheapest labor, least regulations and how much the local government subsidizes business. Somehow economists got it in their head that manufacturing needs exploited labor and can never come back to a country that respects labor. As for automation, if that were the case we'd have "lights out" factories dotting the countryside building everything with at least a reasonable amount of jobs designing, building, programming, installing, operating and maintaining robots. We don't even have that. So on trade, I think Trump is on to something.
2
The modern container-ship and intermodal distribution system is only about four decades old.
Steven's arguments are that of old thinking and have no place in the future economic environment of the United States. This is a wake up call for the US. There are 6 billion prospective customers on this planet and only 350 million of them are in the United States. The US needs to become the preferred manufacturer and service provider to those international customers.
True a few decades ago it was more economically efficient to send manufacturing to China and India because the US could exploit inexpensive labor and non-existent regulations. Today, the US has to take back manufacturing with even greater efficiency than other Countries through the use of technology and trade levers.
Only by drawing more revenue from international markets can the US afford to increase spending on social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Military.
What Steven fails to realize is that without manufacturing as a driving base in the US there is less and less need for Service Sector jobs.
It is time for the US to raise the economic tide within our borders by becoming the cornerstone of manufacturing for the World and say goodbye to old business thinking of the past. Not one of the career politicians currently campaigning for 2016 can offer this future.
True a few decades ago it was more economically efficient to send manufacturing to China and India because the US could exploit inexpensive labor and non-existent regulations. Today, the US has to take back manufacturing with even greater efficiency than other Countries through the use of technology and trade levers.
Only by drawing more revenue from international markets can the US afford to increase spending on social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Military.
What Steven fails to realize is that without manufacturing as a driving base in the US there is less and less need for Service Sector jobs.
It is time for the US to raise the economic tide within our borders by becoming the cornerstone of manufacturing for the World and say goodbye to old business thinking of the past. Not one of the career politicians currently campaigning for 2016 can offer this future.
4
"It’s odd that a successful businessman would have perspectives so outside the boundaries of accepted economic thought."
No, it's not. It's the norm. Most business people have absolutely no clue how a mixed economy works. Not only businessmen are ignoramuses about economics, but the last 30+ years have shown the entire Republican party willfully denies what experience and evidence tell us. Of course, the Democrats aren't much better when it comes to the details but at least they sense that the public sector is crucial to having a production and distrubution system that serves society instead of society serving the relatively few capital owners who've bought the government.
Trump understand economics about as well as any Republican, any supply-side economist, and, from Steve Rattner's writings since the Great Conservative Recession, Steve Rattner.
No, it's not. It's the norm. Most business people have absolutely no clue how a mixed economy works. Not only businessmen are ignoramuses about economics, but the last 30+ years have shown the entire Republican party willfully denies what experience and evidence tell us. Of course, the Democrats aren't much better when it comes to the details but at least they sense that the public sector is crucial to having a production and distrubution system that serves society instead of society serving the relatively few capital owners who've bought the government.
Trump understand economics about as well as any Republican, any supply-side economist, and, from Steve Rattner's writings since the Great Conservative Recession, Steve Rattner.
31
Trump is in the fashion business. His gold-leaf buildings are said to be prestigious. The demands of vanity are insatiable.
1
"For centuries, as countries have developed, the locus of jobs has shifted based on comparative advantage."
"Comparative advantage" is like the term "collateral damage" -- it's a nice label for something that is gross and ugly in its details.
Yes, there's no doubt that the US -- with OSHA and EPA regulations, overtime pay, benefits packages, and higher wages -- compares badly to countries without any of those things. Setting up shop there pays for the costs of doing so within a few years. Perversely, there are even tax benefits to doing so.
What it means is that US corporations who have moved jobs overseas, and the people who run them, have badly hurt their neighbors in the name of an extra x% of profit per year. Friedman is not correct to have said that corporate profits are the only thing a corporation need concern itself with. They have done real and tangible harm to the country they exist within, and whose protections they enjoy.
"Comparative advantage" is like the term "collateral damage" -- it's a nice label for something that is gross and ugly in its details.
Yes, there's no doubt that the US -- with OSHA and EPA regulations, overtime pay, benefits packages, and higher wages -- compares badly to countries without any of those things. Setting up shop there pays for the costs of doing so within a few years. Perversely, there are even tax benefits to doing so.
What it means is that US corporations who have moved jobs overseas, and the people who run them, have badly hurt their neighbors in the name of an extra x% of profit per year. Friedman is not correct to have said that corporate profits are the only thing a corporation need concern itself with. They have done real and tangible harm to the country they exist within, and whose protections they enjoy.
1
--the left just loves to hate.
1
As opposed to the Right, which is best known for joining hands and singing "Kumbaya." It doesn't hate Blacks or Mexicans or gays, or liberals, or Muslims, or foreigners, or people who are different or, well, anything else.
In fact, if you listen to Right Wing politicians, you are constantly struck by their welcoming and all-embracing rhetoric. "It's OK if you're now a white Christian," they so frequently say, "we accept you just the way you are."
In fact, if you listen to Right Wing politicians, you are constantly struck by their welcoming and all-embracing rhetoric. "It's OK if you're now a white Christian," they so frequently say, "we accept you just the way you are."
1
FTA: "He wants to build infrastructure, bolster defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, cut taxes and protect Social Security and Medicare from any trims, all while proclaiming that he’s a fiscal conservative."
In other words, Mr. Trump wants to get elected, and he knows enough voters are ignorant enough to actually believe that we can cut taxes, increase government spending and reduce the deficit all at once.
In other words, Mr. Trump wants to get elected, and he knows enough voters are ignorant enough to actually believe that we can cut taxes, increase government spending and reduce the deficit all at once.
5
I agree with Mr. Rattner that Mr. Trump is cynically misleading the American people with his scapegoating tactics & egotistical economic monotheism. The US has accused China of undervaluing their currency for years to prop up exports although now the IMF has acknowledged that the recent devaluations are positive steps at strengthening the Yuan & seemed ready to accept the Yuan as a global reserve currency along w/ the $, euro and yen. This will increase China's economic power as the US continues to rack up huge federal deficits which China, Japan and Brazil hold the notes to. China's slowdown in growth to 7.9 from the booming 9-10.5% range just a couple of years ago is still a miracle growth compared to anemic US rate of 3.9 and Europe's laggardly 1.8 performance as of late. In otherword, the US & Europe are in no position this late in the horserace to disrespect the Chinese leadership with Trumpisms which are great for boosting Fox TV ratings although deplorable for international diplomacy & positive coaliton building. The idea that Trump extols about the US being so great that it can easily risk offending trading partners with grandious orders like expecting Mexico to pay for building a billion $ fence along the border or telling China that they must stop selling competitively priced manufactured goods to the US is pure naivete, spoiled child egotism mixed with political pandering to the no nothing supporters. He is the flip side to Bernie Sanders Santa Claus message.
1
"In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
Not if you directed this mostly "dead money" to infrastructure, and other public goods. Instead the "dead money" sits where it is, waiting to sow the seeds of the next financial crisis.
Not if you directed this mostly "dead money" to infrastructure, and other public goods. Instead the "dead money" sits where it is, waiting to sow the seeds of the next financial crisis.
4
Trump is living proof of how little it takes to improve on the choices allowed us by the donor class.
For all his manifest, serious faults, he is still more correct about more things than the other Republicans. Hillary tries to triangulate to stay close to the Republicans, so she isn't much better.
Trump is a sad commentary on how low we've fallen, entirely apart from the farce of his behavior, just by his comparison to the rest.
For all his manifest, serious faults, he is still more correct about more things than the other Republicans. Hillary tries to triangulate to stay close to the Republicans, so she isn't much better.
Trump is a sad commentary on how low we've fallen, entirely apart from the farce of his behavior, just by his comparison to the rest.
5
Rattner summarizes Trump's economic inconsistencies, lack of knowledge about how economies function, and trying to convince people he's knowledgeable by saying wait and seeing what he does better than anyone has so far.
However, Trump likes to remind people how rich he (says he) is and will imply an equivalence that becoming rich signals a deep understanding of economics and trade dynamics. The reality among those who have participated in academic surveys, though, shows otherwise. One study after another, one recently released, present strong evidence that people who get rich on their own pay very little attention to economics' policies while clawing their way to the penthouse. They understand their businesses better than anyone and are vast risk takers, but don't necessarily understand how the Federal Reserve regulates banking, interest rates, or the general economy, or any other economic policy that doesn't affect their own business. Ignoring these principles does not translate very well into formulating economic policy designed to temper or regulate the broad economy, and Trump, being Trump, is not built to listen to anyone else, let alone an academic or intellectual who might actually know something about such matters.
Many might admire Trumps good fortune (and perhaps the helpful family who got him there), but no one should confuse his personal success with a deep understanding of general economics principles.
However, Trump likes to remind people how rich he (says he) is and will imply an equivalence that becoming rich signals a deep understanding of economics and trade dynamics. The reality among those who have participated in academic surveys, though, shows otherwise. One study after another, one recently released, present strong evidence that people who get rich on their own pay very little attention to economics' policies while clawing their way to the penthouse. They understand their businesses better than anyone and are vast risk takers, but don't necessarily understand how the Federal Reserve regulates banking, interest rates, or the general economy, or any other economic policy that doesn't affect their own business. Ignoring these principles does not translate very well into formulating economic policy designed to temper or regulate the broad economy, and Trump, being Trump, is not built to listen to anyone else, let alone an academic or intellectual who might actually know something about such matters.
Many might admire Trumps good fortune (and perhaps the helpful family who got him there), but no one should confuse his personal success with a deep understanding of general economics principles.
2
"I guess a foolish inconsistency can also be the hobgoblin of a big mind"
The only things that are big on that head are the hair and the ego. It's amazing how someone who has it wrong 100% has risen to such prominence. Would somebody please make it stop?
The only things that are big on that head are the hair and the ego. It's amazing how someone who has it wrong 100% has risen to such prominence. Would somebody please make it stop?
3
I fail to see the the distinction between your euphemism of accepted economic thought " comparative advantage" and Mr Trumps description of the current state of economic affairs as "using cheap labor, currency manipulation and trade barriers to favor their exports and limit our imports"
True, many of those manufacturing jobs weren’t lost to other countries but to growing efficiency, your euphemism for automation. But equally as true, many were lost because of US companies chasing cheap forign labor. They can take advantage of host nation currency manipulation and trade barriers as as well as lax environmental and labor laws. At home they lobby for and receive and favorable US tax laws, They do those things to establish competitive advantage, namely, make higher profits.
Make no mistake, Mr Trump is the epitome of everything I find repugnant in American politics and business. However just because he represents an unacceptable choice , he can and does , on rare occasion speak the truth. In this case, he is, at least partially right.
True, many of those manufacturing jobs weren’t lost to other countries but to growing efficiency, your euphemism for automation. But equally as true, many were lost because of US companies chasing cheap forign labor. They can take advantage of host nation currency manipulation and trade barriers as as well as lax environmental and labor laws. At home they lobby for and receive and favorable US tax laws, They do those things to establish competitive advantage, namely, make higher profits.
Make no mistake, Mr Trump is the epitome of everything I find repugnant in American politics and business. However just because he represents an unacceptable choice , he can and does , on rare occasion speak the truth. In this case, he is, at least partially right.
2
Obama supporters are a little quick on the draw to say Donald Trump will not be the next President of the United States.
He's already defeated the entire American news media. In less than 8 weeks.
Trump is still standing. Stronger than ever.
If Obama ever got ONE day of coverage in the news media equal to what Trump has endured for the last 6 weeks, Obama would've resigned by 5pm that day and left office for good.
He's already defeated the entire American news media. In less than 8 weeks.
Trump is still standing. Stronger than ever.
If Obama ever got ONE day of coverage in the news media equal to what Trump has endured for the last 6 weeks, Obama would've resigned by 5pm that day and left office for good.
8
You claim to know President Obama's mind without any evidence that you understand yourself.
3
Few Presidents have ever endured the virulently unbalanced coverage the President Obama has received in the right wing press. His faith has been questioned, his citizenship has been questioned, his patriotism has been questioned, along with the normal questioning of his policies. And yet, he has not resigned. He has thrived. He has forced the wacko Republican faction in Congress to back down over and over again. He has passed a health care reform law that now has less than 10% of Americans uninsured. He created a stimulus, tax increases for the 1%, and presided over an economic recovery that surpasses in many ways the Reagan recovery. He has cut deficits by creating economic growth, won re-election and pretty much proved that the rabid Right Wingers were wrong about all their predictions. He will leave this nation far better off than he found it when he took over for Bush. Lets hope he doesnt have to hand it off to the champion of the rude, angry, uninformed, and easily led. Trump isnt even really a Republican/ Conservative. He's an opportunist and a tyrant in the making.
3
That's because he's not even competing in the same sport. Trump isn't running for President, he is simply racking up popularity points. That's like playing basketball during a 100 meter dash. You're obviously going to win, cause you're the only one playing basketball. The other candidates are running for President, hence why their policies are being scrutinized. Trump doesn't even have policies to scrutinize - a fantastic business model indeed, however unelectable it makes him. If I ran for President and didn't care about winning, I'd say I would resurrect Jesus Christ and end all wars and hunger.
7
It is a fallacy to assume that Trump has significant business knowledge or skills. He started working for his family's real estate company in 1968. If the company's assets in 1968 were just $30MM, that value, if invested in an S&P 500 index fund would have grown to $2.5 Billion, which is close to his estimated net worth. So with all his business dealings, he did about as well as someone who just bought the S&P 500 index in 1968, let them sit for 47 years and reinvested the dividends.
5
...amd how many times has The Donald filed for bankruptcy?
3
People will soon find out the Trump is not a financial genius and never was. He inherited a fortune from his father at a time before the real-estate market exploded and used his fortune to ride the market to the top. Once the market normalized he a number of failures and bankruptcies.
Trump puts on a good show, but the end results is he's all flash and very little substance.
Trump puts on a good show, but the end results is he's all flash and very little substance.
2
Donald Trump is doing the smart thing in the face of nonstop media attacks for the last 6 weeks.
He's letting the VOTERS do the talking.
Check out the polls.
He's letting the VOTERS do the talking.
Check out the polls.
2
How dare the media accurately report what Mr. Trump says.
Correction on your last part:
He's letting low information rightist voters do the talking.
No real American will ever vote for the Hair.
Correction on your last part:
He's letting low information rightist voters do the talking.
No real American will ever vote for the Hair.
1
In the polls for the general electorate both Clinton and Sanders trounce Trump. Are those the polls you are referring to?
1
"Steven Rattner is a Wall Street executive and contributing opinion writer. "
And who do/would you support? Not that it matters. Hillary running to be the first American woman president like Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel. She's certainly not another Golda Meir.
As for me I'm gonna vote for the first American Jewish president, Bernie, and if he's not on the ballot I'll write him in.
And who do/would you support? Not that it matters. Hillary running to be the first American woman president like Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel. She's certainly not another Golda Meir.
As for me I'm gonna vote for the first American Jewish president, Bernie, and if he's not on the ballot I'll write him in.
3
I love Bernie but Hillary is getting a bad rap. He's good for her, giving her cover to go with good ideas instead of triangulating as we've all been taught is necessary to win.
God forbid a Republican. Mr. Rattner's own story does not inspire confidence, and the two "businesspeople" Trump and Fiorina are good at hurting other people and promoting themselves, but not much else.
God forbid a Republican. Mr. Rattner's own story does not inspire confidence, and the two "businesspeople" Trump and Fiorina are good at hurting other people and promoting themselves, but not much else.
3
Bernie does not look like a Ralph Nader who will undermine a larger objective for the sake of his own ego.
2
A Businessman deals with "Micro"economics. Governments deal with "Macro"economics.
Completely different animals.
Completely different animals.
3
Rattner is a close Clinton friend and supporter. Trump isn't his real target. His target is the GOP; with facts, or without them, along with fundraising and positioning for the Clintons (who are owned by the very special interests Mr. Rattner represents). The NYT reported in a "Deal Book" article on Rattner ("A Reputation, Once Sullied, Acquires a New Shine"): "When Vice President Biden held his holiday party in December, Mr. Rattner was there. And at the home of Hillary Clinton last month for her farewell party from the State Department, where Mr. Rattner’s wife, Maureen White, works, he was there, too. (His wife was the finance co-chairwoman of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.)"
Some disclosure on Rattner's part--and by the Editors--might be appropriate.
Some disclosure on Rattner's part--and by the Editors--might be appropriate.
8
It would certainly be appropriate. Motivation for taking Trump to task for hucksterism aside, what he says is true. You don't even try to argue otherwise - to your credit.
2
Huckster politics, based on the principles of a snake oil salesman-- means hype is all.
Sales technique rarely emphasizes veracity, substance or moral responsibility.
The goal is to 'close'--bully or nudge the 'mark' to buy your pitch.
An old expression may apply to Trump:
When a man says "Trust me!"- check your silver !
Sales technique rarely emphasizes veracity, substance or moral responsibility.
The goal is to 'close'--bully or nudge the 'mark' to buy your pitch.
An old expression may apply to Trump:
When a man says "Trust me!"- check your silver !
5
I also agree with the people who point out that heads of companies often have very little understanding of economics. I work for a company that was a subsidiary of Advanced Marketing Systems, which was based in San Diego. After AMS filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection, the CEO would be on all-company conference calls lamenting the oversight that AMS had to endure from the bankruptcy court and the creditor's committee. Sounds like Trump to me - use the system where it suits you, complain about the trustees or the Megyn Kelly's of the world when they dare to ask you any questions.
4
"...The shift in manufacturing jobs was inevitable...
So how do you explain Germany...
And just how would a "one-time wealth tax" plunge us into recession?
So how do you explain Germany...
And just how would a "one-time wealth tax" plunge us into recession?
13
Mr. Rattner isn't an economist but is entitled to vote for Hillary when the time comes.
Trump is the only candidate to realize that Americans are worried about jobs above all other issues. There are 94 million Americans out of the workforce today.
Any opinion in the NYTimes about Trump will be negative because of Trump's comments on illegal immigration.
Trump is the only candidate to realize that Americans are worried about jobs above all other issues. There are 94 million Americans out of the workforce today.
Any opinion in the NYTimes about Trump will be negative because of Trump's comments on illegal immigration.
2
Nolan Kennard
This American may stand corrected but I believe that Steve Rattner is a long-time financial reporter and journalist with accrued business experience, who is highly knowledgeable of economic paramount deals on Wall Street.
The moment our wallets got hit at the beginning of the Recession, I felt it was going to be WWIII. Travel to the rural regions of Upstate New York and there are a lot of long faces with reason, as agricultural unemployment increases. We are not only worried, but we care.
Illegal migration is of importance, but was just listening to a hard-working contractor once in the military, now trying to figure out how to put his children through college, while keeping his business open. It is not easy and we are going to have to choose our next President carefully for ourselves and our children.
There are positive comments in the NYTimes about Trump, and yours is proof of the pudding.
This American may stand corrected but I believe that Steve Rattner is a long-time financial reporter and journalist with accrued business experience, who is highly knowledgeable of economic paramount deals on Wall Street.
The moment our wallets got hit at the beginning of the Recession, I felt it was going to be WWIII. Travel to the rural regions of Upstate New York and there are a lot of long faces with reason, as agricultural unemployment increases. We are not only worried, but we care.
Illegal migration is of importance, but was just listening to a hard-working contractor once in the military, now trying to figure out how to put his children through college, while keeping his business open. It is not easy and we are going to have to choose our next President carefully for ourselves and our children.
There are positive comments in the NYTimes about Trump, and yours is proof of the pudding.
Rattner isn't an economist, but it doesn't take an economist to point out the billionnaire has no clothes.
Everyone knows Americans' main concern is jobs. The 94 million out of the workforce aren't out of the workforce because Obama hasn't been making an effort. Imagine the situation we'd have if there had been no stimulus, or no car manufacturers bailout.
As for NYT being anti-Trump because of his stance on illegal immigration, there may be something to that as an initial predisposition toward him; but I'd say his being a know-nothing blowhard is a bigger factor for the paper of record going after him editorially.
Everyone knows Americans' main concern is jobs. The 94 million out of the workforce aren't out of the workforce because Obama hasn't been making an effort. Imagine the situation we'd have if there had been no stimulus, or no car manufacturers bailout.
As for NYT being anti-Trump because of his stance on illegal immigration, there may be something to that as an initial predisposition toward him; but I'd say his being a know-nothing blowhard is a bigger factor for the paper of record going after him editorially.
2
Of course, this pedantic analysis is necessary because Trump is the front runner for the Republican nomination! Outside his own parochial circle, Mr. Rattner probably couldn't count on getting any votes. OK, maybe his mom.
3
Trump is a side effect of the power we give to corporations. As we segue into a country dominated by business interests, our politicians will reflect this priority. In other words, it isn't the best and the brightest , but the loudest narcissist with the most money
5
I now understand why Scott Walker wants to defund the University of Wisconsin. Anyone with a college education could see through Trump's nonsense immediately. Republican empowerment depends on keeping the people stupid. But that is a terribly cynical strategy for staying in power and for leading a nation. Walker and his like should truly be ashamed.
10
Trump's presidential campaign and, I suspect, his business style, can to be summed up in two words: bluster and bluff
And yet Trump, I believe, has no intention or desire to be president. He is simply using the process to embelish his brand and, this is key, the free leverage it engenders to borrow yet more millions, at a favorable rate.
And yet Trump, I believe, has no intention or desire to be president. He is simply using the process to embelish his brand and, this is key, the free leverage it engenders to borrow yet more millions, at a favorable rate.
3
Mr. Trump INHERITED his money. His father built a real estate empire following WW ll, building apartments in NY with HUD funds. A smart business move. Donald inherited the monthly rents...giving him the cushion and the collateral he needed to take big chances, let the debtors beware.
He played real estate like a poker player, knowing the odds and also knowing if he failed his debtors lost, not him. His only claim to fame is that he makes P.T. Barnum look like an amateur. Like Barnum, his claim to fame is his ability to sell himself. He is a shrewd poker player, conveying confidence and bluster while he has little in his hand.
Follow his complicated financial picture and you will see everything he has serves as collateral for everything else. In actual assets and income he has the selling of his name as his main source of income, plus the rents from Daddy's buildings.
I have known "the Donald" and his father since he and I were children.
He played real estate like a poker player, knowing the odds and also knowing if he failed his debtors lost, not him. His only claim to fame is that he makes P.T. Barnum look like an amateur. Like Barnum, his claim to fame is his ability to sell himself. He is a shrewd poker player, conveying confidence and bluster while he has little in his hand.
Follow his complicated financial picture and you will see everything he has serves as collateral for everything else. In actual assets and income he has the selling of his name as his main source of income, plus the rents from Daddy's buildings.
I have known "the Donald" and his father since he and I were children.
10
None of this should come as a surprise: Republicans haven't based policy decisions on data or research in decades, because that doesn't get them elected.
That said, Mr. Trump is no fool. None of the misogynistic statements, the silly rhetoric, or the absurd ideas in any way harm him. Mr. Trump is a businessman, and every article like this one reinforces his business. Mr. Trump won't win the presidency. He probably won't even win the Republican nomination. But at the end of the day, Mr. Trump will still be a billionaire, and we'll all still be paying him to be one.
That said, Mr. Trump is no fool. None of the misogynistic statements, the silly rhetoric, or the absurd ideas in any way harm him. Mr. Trump is a businessman, and every article like this one reinforces his business. Mr. Trump won't win the presidency. He probably won't even win the Republican nomination. But at the end of the day, Mr. Trump will still be a billionaire, and we'll all still be paying him to be one.
16
"...his plan to deport 11.5 million undocumented immigrants could cost at least $400 billion over 20 years"
Rattner uses one of the highest cost estimates published. Others have estimated that self deportation would cost less than $200 billion. The cost of not deporting? It is estimated (Heritage Foundation) that illegals will receive $9.3 trillion in government benefits and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes, creating a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion. Self deportation would save the United States trillions of dollars.
Rattner uses one of the highest cost estimates published. Others have estimated that self deportation would cost less than $200 billion. The cost of not deporting? It is estimated (Heritage Foundation) that illegals will receive $9.3 trillion in government benefits and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes, creating a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion. Self deportation would save the United States trillions of dollars.
1
It would be an interesting exercise to compare and contrast Trumps' silly ideas with Hillary's eminently sensible plans.
Alas... Hillary has not deigned - I love that quasi-regal word - to let us know what she would do.
So - in the end - what is better - to have some outlandish ideas - or to have no ideas at all?
Alas... Hillary has not deigned - I love that quasi-regal word - to let us know what she would do.
So - in the end - what is better - to have some outlandish ideas - or to have no ideas at all?
1
If that is really a rhetorical question, you have to do a better job than you do here of influencing the reader to come up with the answer you prefer. I myself come up on the side of following someone who stands pat rather than the one I know is wrong about the majority of what he says.
Trump has a luxury - enough money to insulate himself from the consequences of his delusions. The notable thing about Trump is that he's addicted to the spotlight - it's part of his brand - so his views are getting a bit more scrutiny.
Not so the other big money players who are hiring front men to go after the White House for them. Take a look at the beliefs and practices of Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers, and they're not only as muddled as Trump's - they're downright toxic.
If Trump is doing so well in the Republican clown car despite economic views that make no sense, it's because those other billionaires working in the background with think tanks, foundations, astroturf groups, etc. to spread their beliefs, have turned the Republican Party into ideal habitat for Trump.
It's not just Trump whose economic policies are a disaster waiting to happen - it's the whole GOP field.
Not so the other big money players who are hiring front men to go after the White House for them. Take a look at the beliefs and practices of Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers, and they're not only as muddled as Trump's - they're downright toxic.
If Trump is doing so well in the Republican clown car despite economic views that make no sense, it's because those other billionaires working in the background with think tanks, foundations, astroturf groups, etc. to spread their beliefs, have turned the Republican Party into ideal habitat for Trump.
It's not just Trump whose economic policies are a disaster waiting to happen - it's the whole GOP field.
53
It is truly poetic justice. The GOP having to deal with the party spoiler that they invited in.
1
Aww Steven, Nothing takes more priority in Trumps mind than making you happy.
That's reassuring, Ragz. You're a darn sensitive guy/gal for informing Steven.
As David Brooks said, Donald Trump voters are low information voters. He doesn't have and ideology or belief system, he has himself. People are buying into the garbage that's coming out of his mouth while at the same time, he's getting exposure for his last name.
The Huffington Post is correct to put mention of him in the entertainment section as that's all he is.
The Huffington Post is correct to put mention of him in the entertainment section as that's all he is.
6
It's edifying to see a Wall Street insider take down the supposedly great business leader - the self trumpeter exposed for his lack of monetary, financial or jobs- creating economic acumen that keeps slipping through the cracks of his bluster.
3
The funny thing is that Trump's economic ideas, while at times contradictory, still make more sense than those of most of his Republican rivals. At least some of his claims make sense. He is the only Republican far and wide to admit that yes, single-payer health care works, and he admits that if ACA is repealed, it needs to be replaced with something similar. He hasn't promised never to raise taxes and he admits that we need infrastructure spending. He hasn't swallowed the factually discredited "free trade" propaganda that all his rivals as well as Rattner himself keep repeating like automatons. Rattner claims that a loss of manufacturing was "inevitable" - has he looked at German economic statistics lately?
It's interesting that a right-winger like Rattner feels the need to attack Trump essentially for being sometimes right, while his rivals (unmentioned by Rattner) are consistently and always wrong on economic matters. This campaign is going to be fun.
It's interesting that a right-winger like Rattner feels the need to attack Trump essentially for being sometimes right, while his rivals (unmentioned by Rattner) are consistently and always wrong on economic matters. This campaign is going to be fun.
7
Four bankruptcies, and Trump is called a successful businessman?
6
In Trump's mind he is. He took advantage of the rules, just like the shysters on Wall Street.
I don't want to suggest that Trump has some real insight, because he likely doesn't, but accepted economic policies are mostly meant as manipulation techniques to wring every last dime out the average citizen. In that sense (take the money and run) Trump seems very much a part of mainstream economic policy. It's clear that if he has any skill it is as a bully and thief without morals or ethics, which is pretty mainstream economic policy for the majority of corporations and the investors they attract.
18
T-rumps economic "position" is serve yourself, no matter who gets hurt. Run out on your debt, your friends, your family, if that's what it takes. He has no actual rules for himself, so none to follow.
22
Trump doesn't realize that we live in a global economy. He cites Ford's decision to open a plant in Mexico but he didn't cite the plants that are already there:http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/06/15/auto-jobs-mexico/712... Also, he doesn't cite the impact of foreign car plants in the USA: http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/foreign-cars-made-in-america-where-doe... He's simply out of touch with reality; however, he does have charisma. Do voters really care about specifics?
1
T-rumps economic "position" is always serve yourself, no matter who gets hurt. Run out on your debts, your friends, your family, if that what it takes. There's no surprise, here. He has no actual rules, so none to follow.
1
Maybe Mr. Trump should take that IQ test with Mr. Perry. Both cribbing from the other, they might both boost their scores.
Given that Trump's narrative for success involves a lot of lies, it's not surprising that he thinks bluffing and lies are the keys to success.
2
It is a waste of time to analyze Mr. Trump's opinions on anything at this point. He is changes them depending on his mood.
3
Why would Donald Trump provide specifics THIS EARLY in the campaign?
All these pro-Obama political insiders with their horn rimmed glasses and Ivy League degrees literally miss basic, tie your shoelaces political strategy done in broad daylight, over and over again.
A 4 year old knows its too early for Trump to give specifics. The mainstream media has aired over 1,220 hours of negative campaign coverage and the print/internet media have generated over 7 MILLION hits on their sites bashing Trump since the first week of July.
When the entire American news media is attacking you every day, you don't give specifics for them to mischaracterize and pick apart. Trump just got 2 weeks of negative press for something he didn't even SAY.
Stop whining.
Maybe in 2016 the American people will ACTUALLY decide who we want as President, instead of news hacks and TV pundits.
All these pro-Obama political insiders with their horn rimmed glasses and Ivy League degrees literally miss basic, tie your shoelaces political strategy done in broad daylight, over and over again.
A 4 year old knows its too early for Trump to give specifics. The mainstream media has aired over 1,220 hours of negative campaign coverage and the print/internet media have generated over 7 MILLION hits on their sites bashing Trump since the first week of July.
When the entire American news media is attacking you every day, you don't give specifics for them to mischaracterize and pick apart. Trump just got 2 weeks of negative press for something he didn't even SAY.
Stop whining.
Maybe in 2016 the American people will ACTUALLY decide who we want as President, instead of news hacks and TV pundits.
6
The incapacity of any of these candidates to decisively resolve any issue at all is a big part of what makes them all look utterly dreary to me.
I think you mean instead of the Supreme Court in 2000...
Amazing how DCB consistently denounces anyone who questions anything a Republican candidate or politician says as pro-Obama. Just because you can't divorce yourself from your Fox Noise talking points doesn't mean the rest of march in lock step. How does this nonsense get by the moderators?
Amazing how DCB consistently denounces anyone who questions anything a Republican candidate or politician says as pro-Obama. Just because you can't divorce yourself from your Fox Noise talking points doesn't mean the rest of march in lock step. How does this nonsense get by the moderators?
Rattner writes, "Moreover, many of those manufacturing jobs weren’t lost to other countries but to growing efficiency, just as employment in agriculture in the United States has fallen even as output has risen."
Well, OK, but that wouldn't explain why virtually *everything* is now made in China. It seems to me that the rise in efficiency in manufacturing has been on China's part. When combined with low wages and little environmental or worker-safety regulations, and with global capitalism being what it is, it was indeed inevitable that the US would lose its manufacturing base. Unless, as another reader points out, we, like Germany, took steps to protect it. But despite what politicians say, actually protecting jobs is political suicide in the US, because there's far more money to be made by the few if we don't worry about the many.
Well, OK, but that wouldn't explain why virtually *everything* is now made in China. It seems to me that the rise in efficiency in manufacturing has been on China's part. When combined with low wages and little environmental or worker-safety regulations, and with global capitalism being what it is, it was indeed inevitable that the US would lose its manufacturing base. Unless, as another reader points out, we, like Germany, took steps to protect it. But despite what politicians say, actually protecting jobs is political suicide in the US, because there's far more money to be made by the few if we don't worry about the many.
3
Agreed. Since when was cheap, sweatshop labor considered "efficiency"? The bottom line is just look at labels....I'll offer this challenge to anyone, I'll pay you $10 for every item in your house with a "made in the USA" label and you ay me a $1 for every item not made in the USA.
2
"...combined with low wages and little environmental or worker-safety regulations..."
Ratner's definition of efficiency.
Ratner's definition of efficiency.
2
Well but Trumps's supporters are very far from any economics too but on the other hand they like very much that they can understand all his talks just perfectly unlike Bernie who's speeches are clear only to well educated people.
Barack Obama led America to our first credit downgrade in history, 18 trillion dollar deficit and 91 million Americans giving up on finding work.
There's nowhere to go but up.
Trump 2016
There's nowhere to go but up.
Trump 2016
4
Ridiculous comment. The credit downgrade was wholly the fault of the Republican House playing politics with the debt ceiling. It had nothing to do with Obama.
As for The Donald, I'm praying that he runs all the way to November...
As for The Donald, I'm praying that he runs all the way to November...
2
whoa there, Nelly - it was the knucklehead gutless Repugnant-cans who led to the shutdown and downgrade (by one credit rating agency), not Obama.
and as is plain from most of your comment, you remain factually challenged. Your beloved St. Ronald and Bushes 1 & II that ran up the overwhelming majority of our national debt but don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions (as ill-informed as they may be).
and as is plain from most of your comment, you remain factually challenged. Your beloved St. Ronald and Bushes 1 & II that ran up the overwhelming majority of our national debt but don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions (as ill-informed as they may be).
1
Not all of Trump's views are crazy. His support of a single payer health care system, raising of taxes on the rich are examples. Visceral views can also tap into the conscience, and often give better answers than intellectual reasonings. However, his egoistic, aggressive and uncompromising nature brings him down. They lead to polarization and eventually economic collapse, maybe to more wars. So a big "Nope" to him...
Rattner misses the point of a 35% tariff on Ford vehicles built in Mexico which is to pressure Ford into building its $2.5 billion dollar plant in the US.
4
Not all businesspeople are alike (duh).
Trump does not build or run sustainable businesses, which is something that takes economic knowledge. He simply tries to buy low and sell high, taking advantage of his skills in negotiating, bullying, and filing lawsuits.
Trump does not build or run sustainable businesses, which is something that takes economic knowledge. He simply tries to buy low and sell high, taking advantage of his skills in negotiating, bullying, and filing lawsuits.
2
To the honest, Mr. Rattner, I haven't watched Donald Trump on T.V. because it is a bit like attending a bull-fight where the big toro is confused, and the matador in the howling arena is poking him, until he brings him down. Not a pretty sight.
But your referring to his economic muddle drew my attention. For some reason, I thought Mr. Trump was still going on about his, or our united war with Mexico, and he apparently has decided that an American equivalent of 'The China Wall' is a good investment to keep out the foreigners? Well, I never thought of him as a copy-cat, especially when it comes to imitating Asians who probably believe we have fallen on our crown and are not alone.
No increase in the minimum wage? I personally wrote in an open letter that I would type Mr. Trump's speeches for free, if he addressed this important matter. Global warming may be a fantasy, but reading some of his proposals here are making me hot around the collar.
Donald Trump reminds me of the American Idol millionaire, Jo Stoyte, in 'After Many a Summer Dies the Swan', and you will find him in a little- known novel by Huxley, which may leave you feeling a bit sorry for him.
But your referring to his economic muddle drew my attention. For some reason, I thought Mr. Trump was still going on about his, or our united war with Mexico, and he apparently has decided that an American equivalent of 'The China Wall' is a good investment to keep out the foreigners? Well, I never thought of him as a copy-cat, especially when it comes to imitating Asians who probably believe we have fallen on our crown and are not alone.
No increase in the minimum wage? I personally wrote in an open letter that I would type Mr. Trump's speeches for free, if he addressed this important matter. Global warming may be a fantasy, but reading some of his proposals here are making me hot around the collar.
Donald Trump reminds me of the American Idol millionaire, Jo Stoyte, in 'After Many a Summer Dies the Swan', and you will find him in a little- known novel by Huxley, which may leave you feeling a bit sorry for him.
I think Trump is having a good time being trump and he doeesnt care about fact or reality. He is on stage and making fools out of the Republican party. Bottom line..Keep it up Trump
" I’ll be happy when he is off the stage."
AMEN to that! Listening to that fool and the nonsensical claptrap that comes out of his mouth gives me a headache.
Trump is a cartoon character.
Unfortunately for thinking Americans, what he says is not to be found on the funny pages but on the front page.
AMEN to that! Listening to that fool and the nonsensical claptrap that comes out of his mouth gives me a headache.
Trump is a cartoon character.
Unfortunately for thinking Americans, what he says is not to be found on the funny pages but on the front page.
1
To me the interesting thing is not Trump himself but the outsized fear he seems to generate in people like Rattner.
People that like Trump, like him because they have figured out at this point that our so called leaders don't lead and are basically corrupt mouthpieces for big money interests in this country. That hold true for both parties.
The people don't really like Trump, they just hate him less than the traditional politicians.
People that like Trump, like him because they have figured out at this point that our so called leaders don't lead and are basically corrupt mouthpieces for big money interests in this country. That hold true for both parties.
The people don't really like Trump, they just hate him less than the traditional politicians.
2
Any Republicans that think Mr. Trump is a serious problem for the Republican Party (which certainly includes all of those running against him for the nomination) should recognized that he is a stunning example of the type of person their rhetoric since 1980 has created. Trump would be Trump (privileged, born to great wealth, arrogant, narcissistic, etc.) without standing in the middle of the Fox's stage, but where better to strut like the peacock that he is? Imagine him at the UN!
When one of only two political parties in a country preaches against government, except when they control it completely, then you're going to cultivate anti-government sentiment. Trump is the Republican chicken coming home to roost. Trump is the candidate they deserve. Trump is a master a tireless self promotion at the expense of anyone or anything that gets in his way. He is the perfect Republican candidate for our time.
When you're just plain filthy rich you don't need to understand economics - or anything else. The very base base (not a typo) of the Republican party thinks they can be just like him. At least they want to be.
When one of only two political parties in a country preaches against government, except when they control it completely, then you're going to cultivate anti-government sentiment. Trump is the Republican chicken coming home to roost. Trump is the candidate they deserve. Trump is a master a tireless self promotion at the expense of anyone or anything that gets in his way. He is the perfect Republican candidate for our time.
When you're just plain filthy rich you don't need to understand economics - or anything else. The very base base (not a typo) of the Republican party thinks they can be just like him. At least they want to be.
2
The main problem the electorate has right now is that media and news outlets like the NYT speak out of two sides of their mouths ... loudly lamenting inane attention-seekers who demean the candidacy and whose sole value seems to be providing late-night TV with material, but then giving them reams of nonstop newsprint and air time.
If you all stopped covering these Kardashian-esque clowns and stopped playing "he said, she said" prime time ratings wars; and actually only covered the candidates as though they were actually in the initial stages of interviewing for the most important job in the country, the "low information voters" would have to wake up and figure it out and the rest of us wouldn't be subjected to so much drivel.
If you all stopped covering these Kardashian-esque clowns and stopped playing "he said, she said" prime time ratings wars; and actually only covered the candidates as though they were actually in the initial stages of interviewing for the most important job in the country, the "low information voters" would have to wake up and figure it out and the rest of us wouldn't be subjected to so much drivel.
3
Let me summarize the column: Mr. Trump is stupid and so are the people who favor him.
4
Everything Steve Rattner says is right on the mark. Trump's economic "ideas", if they can be called that, are a melange of nonsensical and inconsistent babble. The interesting thing, tough, is why are his poll numbers climbing --as several political analysts have been at pains to interpret? It's been long established that it's seldom the candidate with the best (or more consistent) ideas the popular one. That's democracy.
Trump is not running on the consistency of his economic ideas or his carefully constructed, well-thought and planned, budget. His popularity is not based on those things. Trump is channeling the *emotions* of a growing and frustrated electorate. Mr. Rattner could help in analyzing the forces that our current economic system has created to fuel a phenomenon such as this one.
Trump is not running on the consistency of his economic ideas or his carefully constructed, well-thought and planned, budget. His popularity is not based on those things. Trump is channeling the *emotions* of a growing and frustrated electorate. Mr. Rattner could help in analyzing the forces that our current economic system has created to fuel a phenomenon such as this one.
2
The problem is that while Trump has a whole bunch of often contradictory, sometimes outright silly views, he has no discernable overall philosophy regarding anything, unless you consider narcasism a philosophy.
He just mouths off while everyone else, including, sadly, the NYT scambles to make overall sense of his egotisticl ramblings. There is none to be found.
Sorry folks, there is no there there.
He has no coherent policy on anything, and everyone knows it. In the interests of "fairness", or a sense that he sells, the media treats him as though he is real. He's a balloon, gaudy and full of hot air.
We have a country to run. The USA is not a reality TV show.
Grow up folks.
He just mouths off while everyone else, including, sadly, the NYT scambles to make overall sense of his egotisticl ramblings. There is none to be found.
Sorry folks, there is no there there.
He has no coherent policy on anything, and everyone knows it. In the interests of "fairness", or a sense that he sells, the media treats him as though he is real. He's a balloon, gaudy and full of hot air.
We have a country to run. The USA is not a reality TV show.
Grow up folks.
4
How many of Trump's followers are going to read this piece? Therein lies the problem. They don't care.
3
This is, by far, the smartest comment anybody has written. Trump's followers don't care.
"Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?" - Senator Roman Hruska
Trump represents living proof of that old shoe, "Be careful what you ask for . . ." The appeal of his maunderings is scary. Added to the fact that he is out-polling the other candidates and you have to wonder. His proposed solutions won't stand up to close examination as Mr. Rattner has explained and explained well, at that.
What is really frightening is that his followers will come out in large numbers to vote for him should he run for President. Democratic voters need to heed his allure and get to the polls too. They were in short supply in the last election despite the obvious need for a Democratic President and Congress.
What is really frightening is that his followers will come out in large numbers to vote for him should he run for President. Democratic voters need to heed his allure and get to the polls too. They were in short supply in the last election despite the obvious need for a Democratic President and Congress.
2
That's the problem with democracy, isn't it? The "large numbers" who get to vote don't always listen to their betters & do what they're told.
nothing against Mr. Rattner, but I tend to ignore "experts" on the economy....where were all the high profile "experts" in the months leading up to the 2008 mortgage implosion? I don't think there was one single big shot economist or CEO of anything, and certainly no congressman or senator, who warned us about any of that.....it goes to show that the economy is kind of stealthy and mysterious, and very fragile....to heck with all the so-called "experts" blowing hot air, find me the guys who predicted the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and use them as" opinionators" for a change
3
Those "guys" are easy to find, just go to Amazon and search economy/finance and look for books published before Sept 2008.
China does manipulate the market to its advantage. Rattner should check his facts before providing us with his own economic muddle!
3
Why are we worried about Trump's anything, much less economic policy. He is a nonentity in terms of being in danger of being nominated much less elected.
Trump is media candy and a waste of time for the rest of us.
Trump is media candy and a waste of time for the rest of us.
2
Steven Rattner takes the position that where we are today was inevitable, for many reasons, and that anything other than where we are today would be a disaster.
I can't believe that. I can't believe that where we are today is the best possible position we could be in, or that different policies might not have put us in a better place, particularly regarding trade and manufacturing.
I'm no fan of Trump's or Republicans in general. But I disagree profoundly with Rattner's blanket assumptions of the inevitability of where we are today.
I can't believe that. I can't believe that where we are today is the best possible position we could be in, or that different policies might not have put us in a better place, particularly regarding trade and manufacturing.
I'm no fan of Trump's or Republicans in general. But I disagree profoundly with Rattner's blanket assumptions of the inevitability of where we are today.
11
Were the great satirist, Jonathan Swift, alive today he could not have designed a more fitting caricature of the modern republican than Trump.
Sure that he is the bearer of truth and all others are wrong, and worse.
Satisfied with theories that have been shown to be false instead of dealing with reality.
Mean spirited to any and all who question his majesty.
Convinced that any criticism is a personal attack on him and his majesty.
Completely wrong. About almost everything.
How is he any different from any other republican we have seen the last dozen years or more?
There is one difference, I guess; he is the oligarch out in front instead of hiding behind some pious phony like Scott Walker or George W. Bush.
I hope he enjoys a long ride on the circus train that is the republican party, because the longer he is visible as the face of the party the more people will recoil with horror at the thought of them remaining in control of Congress and taking control of the White House.
Sure that he is the bearer of truth and all others are wrong, and worse.
Satisfied with theories that have been shown to be false instead of dealing with reality.
Mean spirited to any and all who question his majesty.
Convinced that any criticism is a personal attack on him and his majesty.
Completely wrong. About almost everything.
How is he any different from any other republican we have seen the last dozen years or more?
There is one difference, I guess; he is the oligarch out in front instead of hiding behind some pious phony like Scott Walker or George W. Bush.
I hope he enjoys a long ride on the circus train that is the republican party, because the longer he is visible as the face of the party the more people will recoil with horror at the thought of them remaining in control of Congress and taking control of the White House.
11
I wish this guy would just go away. Now.
5
Wait......"who has watched four of his companies slide into bankruptcy,"
Oh my, that is different than you wall street hedge fund, investment bank and commercial bank buddies being rescued by the Fed, isn't it?
Opinion score, - maybe a D (-).
Oh my, that is different than you wall street hedge fund, investment bank and commercial bank buddies being rescued by the Fed, isn't it?
Opinion score, - maybe a D (-).
4
So Wall Street's Rattner denounces Trump's economics. That's the pot calling the kettle black. Given the monstrous, greed-fueled, corruption-driven destruction of ordinary Americans' economy by Wall Street, anyone Wall Street dislikes automatically earns another look from me.
Maybe it takes one financial con artist like Trump to tell the truth about that other pack of financial scammers, Wall Street. It doesn't mean I'll vote for Trump, but I'll sure keep listening. Wall Street's vermin, I'm through with.
Maybe it takes one financial con artist like Trump to tell the truth about that other pack of financial scammers, Wall Street. It doesn't mean I'll vote for Trump, but I'll sure keep listening. Wall Street's vermin, I'm through with.
3
"evincing a lack of understanding of basic economics"
Really? Or do you maen the pulling the wool over the eyes of the middle class
to have them believe that trickle down really works and the pure theft of jobs from this country enabled by the likes of Bush I, II, Clinton and now Odumbo, your hero has been really beneficial?
Get a grip Rattner and go back to Morning Joe for some really in depth discussion. Right..................
The only tectonic force that affected America's headlong pursuit into the farce of free trade was $$ going into Congressional and polictical pockets from Wall Street. Economics are so much easier to understand when your fork goes in the meat first. Why build a plant staeside for a million when you can spread it around D.C. and get back billions. Nows that's a real multiplier effect.
Enough of this malarky. Trump is saying what folks like you would luv to keep hidden in the darkness along with the overpaid media talking heads.
CNBC is a close second now to CNN.
Really? Or do you maen the pulling the wool over the eyes of the middle class
to have them believe that trickle down really works and the pure theft of jobs from this country enabled by the likes of Bush I, II, Clinton and now Odumbo, your hero has been really beneficial?
Get a grip Rattner and go back to Morning Joe for some really in depth discussion. Right..................
The only tectonic force that affected America's headlong pursuit into the farce of free trade was $$ going into Congressional and polictical pockets from Wall Street. Economics are so much easier to understand when your fork goes in the meat first. Why build a plant staeside for a million when you can spread it around D.C. and get back billions. Nows that's a real multiplier effect.
Enough of this malarky. Trump is saying what folks like you would luv to keep hidden in the darkness along with the overpaid media talking heads.
CNBC is a close second now to CNN.
5
um, not quite - the destruction of the manufacturing base in the US was primarily due to the consolidation of virtually every industry, and these policies came about because of years of careful planning and execution by the 4000 or so fat white guys who run this country. Factories got shut down because once you own 50 of them, it is easy to shut them down one by one here, and open them in Vietnam & the Philippines. If you only have 3 or 4 factories, you can't afford to do that. And you can thank their highly paid mouthpiece Reagan for that...
I agree that many of Trumps policies are off the mark, but his wealth tax on the super rich should not be dismissed. The dirty secret of the rich is that unlike the guy who works for a living and has to pay taxes on all his earned income, the rich have a) lower rates for capital gains and b) don't have to pay taxes on the change in their wealth if they don't recognize capital gains. As a result a rich guy who has huge gains in stock wealth can avoid recognizing those gains and simply borrows against his/her wealth. Sure would be nice if I could defer the taxes on my earned income until I felt like recognizing it. Obviously Mr Rattner understands that the rich understate their "income" thru tricks like this and doesn't appreciate Trump exposing the dirty little tax secrets of his rich Wall Street friends.
5
recognizing the theory of comparative advantage, what are the advantages of the other candidates over Trump. The only advantage that I can think of is that they are better at hiding what they think and do. I would say Trump is smarter than most of them, has been more successful than all of them, and is not bought off directly by the plutocracy.
3
What economic recovery caused by low interest rates? Maybe the people with %500M apartments had a recovery, but not the hundreds of millions of long-term unemployed. Not those watching food and housing prices rise.
2
While many of Trump’s proposals seem, questionable, yours are worse.
WHY do other countries have a “comparative advantage” over US manufacturers? Taxes and regulations play a huge part. Our corporate taxes are almost three times higher than those of Canada and Ireland. This explains why companies lined up at the border to escape; why $2 T+ in profits camps out overseas.
And the Dems promise to make the problem worse, by imposing even higher taxes.
Additionally, TRY building something in this country. Any substantial project is instantly opposed by the eco-extremists. And God forbid that one should propose digging a hole or using energy. The refusal to accept modest environmental tradeoffs for huge economic benefits stifles American competitiveness, makes us dependent upon less fastidious nations for things like rare Earth minerals, and costs us hundreds of billions in GDP. Just consider Cuomo’s surrender to the ecos on fracking, which even the extremists at the EPA admit has no substantial adverse consequences.
Finally, illegals cost us an unholy fortune. Each illegal kid costs as much as $35K just for education in a NJ Abbott district. Illegals undercut wages for citizens and contribute to a pathetic workforce participation rate. Sending them home would be a huge boon. Indeed, we should look at unskilled LEGAL immigration as well. We don’t need people whose only asset is a strong back.
So, Trump is far from perfect. But your policies make less sense than do his.
WHY do other countries have a “comparative advantage” over US manufacturers? Taxes and regulations play a huge part. Our corporate taxes are almost three times higher than those of Canada and Ireland. This explains why companies lined up at the border to escape; why $2 T+ in profits camps out overseas.
And the Dems promise to make the problem worse, by imposing even higher taxes.
Additionally, TRY building something in this country. Any substantial project is instantly opposed by the eco-extremists. And God forbid that one should propose digging a hole or using energy. The refusal to accept modest environmental tradeoffs for huge economic benefits stifles American competitiveness, makes us dependent upon less fastidious nations for things like rare Earth minerals, and costs us hundreds of billions in GDP. Just consider Cuomo’s surrender to the ecos on fracking, which even the extremists at the EPA admit has no substantial adverse consequences.
Finally, illegals cost us an unholy fortune. Each illegal kid costs as much as $35K just for education in a NJ Abbott district. Illegals undercut wages for citizens and contribute to a pathetic workforce participation rate. Sending them home would be a huge boon. Indeed, we should look at unskilled LEGAL immigration as well. We don’t need people whose only asset is a strong back.
So, Trump is far from perfect. But your policies make less sense than do his.
2
Your analysis is way off....just look at Germany, one of the most regulated places on the planet....plenty of manufacturing jobs there. Come down to Texas and drink the water from the Eagle Ford shale if you think fracking is harmless.
1
Donald Trump isn't a business leader he is a promotor. He's client is Donald Trump.
2
I disagree with this article. It was not "inevitable" that our manufacturing jobs be outsourced; the major beneficiaries just happened to be in power. And regarding "Low interest rates have helped our economic recovery. And not only is inflation nowhere to be seen..."; by transferring trillions of tax dollars and lost interest on savings from the middle class and seniors to Wall Street, the self-serving Fed has suppressed spending, labor participation, and wages for all but the wealthy, while simultaneously increasing income inequality. As the NYT has published previously, the "recovery" is only for the 1%. Anyone who shops or pays their own bills knows inflation is a major factor for average Americans. These are just a few of the flaws in this weak article.
5
This article is written by a dyed in the wool neoliberal and it is neoliberalism that is the problem. Even the great Nobel economist Paul Samuelson agreed with Trump on Trade and he also knew that economists are too embedded in their own demagoguery to accept when they are wrong. Proof? Right here.
“I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws, or crafts its advanced treatises, if I can write its economics textbooks.” So said one of the greatest textbook writers of them all, Paul Samuelson.
But even Samuelson didn’t live forever—he died in 2009 aged 94—and now others decide what the rising generation is reading. It is a fair bet that, on one of the most critical issues of modern economic policy, his successors’ books would not meet with the master’s approval. That issue is trade.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/beyond-free-trade/
“I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws, or crafts its advanced treatises, if I can write its economics textbooks.” So said one of the greatest textbook writers of them all, Paul Samuelson.
But even Samuelson didn’t live forever—he died in 2009 aged 94—and now others decide what the rising generation is reading. It is a fair bet that, on one of the most critical issues of modern economic policy, his successors’ books would not meet with the master’s approval. That issue is trade.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/beyond-free-trade/
3
I am surprised by all the people who write about Donald Trump without making an effort to know him. I took the time to read his books in the last 30 days to understand the guy, from The Art of the Deal to How to be an Entrepreneur.
First, Trump started with a 200,000 inheritance from his dad who was a developer of cheap houses in Queens and Bklyn; so he did not inherit millions! and he invested wisely, build his wealth with great ideas financed by credit. It is baffling to say that a self made billionaire knows nothing about economy... if not him, who? Obama? Who was a small time community organizer? W. Bush who had bankrupt everything he touched?
"Knowing Trump" after reading his books, the man will assemble a team of specialist to flesh out policies, after he'll give them the theme in broad strokes; then he'll pick the best, improve it, sell it to Congress and implement it. This is a big picture business man, not a bookworm or a narrow minded policy officer who works for some think tank.
First, Trump started with a 200,000 inheritance from his dad who was a developer of cheap houses in Queens and Bklyn; so he did not inherit millions! and he invested wisely, build his wealth with great ideas financed by credit. It is baffling to say that a self made billionaire knows nothing about economy... if not him, who? Obama? Who was a small time community organizer? W. Bush who had bankrupt everything he touched?
"Knowing Trump" after reading his books, the man will assemble a team of specialist to flesh out policies, after he'll give them the theme in broad strokes; then he'll pick the best, improve it, sell it to Congress and implement it. This is a big picture business man, not a bookworm or a narrow minded policy officer who works for some think tank.
3
Hold on, you are going to quote Trump's books as facts?! Now that is rich. 2 cents - here's your change...
America opened trade up with China without first ensuring a level playing field. It did so to apparently help a developing nation. In doing so it killed off its own jobs and went into massive debt.
If a nation offers production and manufacturing to a very low-wage economy with few human rights (China), not to mention low currency relationships, then there is no way the U.S. jobs are going to be retained. It was not comparative advantage that change the economic scene.
How does a U.S. software engineer compete with a Chinese one who lives in a small apartment with two families and bikes to work on a wage that is a 3rd that of the U.S. counterpart?
Just to make sure the result was devastating, then America started to buy all the cheaper products off China, of less quality in general, and to do so started to borrow more and more on credit.
In the end all the capital shifted from America across to China, which now travels to America to buy all its property and assets. Thanks America your really great for helping out China by following economic principles that only see things on a single plain - and not as everything being connected. Economists see the earth as flat and try to make commerce operate on a linear flat basis. So long as that fallacy continues we are destined for problems and not sustainable growth and stability. If not an eventual recession or worse.
If a nation offers production and manufacturing to a very low-wage economy with few human rights (China), not to mention low currency relationships, then there is no way the U.S. jobs are going to be retained. It was not comparative advantage that change the economic scene.
How does a U.S. software engineer compete with a Chinese one who lives in a small apartment with two families and bikes to work on a wage that is a 3rd that of the U.S. counterpart?
Just to make sure the result was devastating, then America started to buy all the cheaper products off China, of less quality in general, and to do so started to borrow more and more on credit.
In the end all the capital shifted from America across to China, which now travels to America to buy all its property and assets. Thanks America your really great for helping out China by following economic principles that only see things on a single plain - and not as everything being connected. Economists see the earth as flat and try to make commerce operate on a linear flat basis. So long as that fallacy continues we are destined for problems and not sustainable growth and stability. If not an eventual recession or worse.
6
Well calling a businessman with four corporate bankruptcies on his ledger "successful" is buying into the snake oil that Trumplestiltskin is selling. Someone who is a regular on the Times' Op-Ed page should surely know better.
And to take him at face value about China's "unfair" manufacturing advantage over America is to be either blithely unaware or to ignore the fact that while Trumplestiltskin rails about this, a line of clothes bearing his name is being manufactured, yes, in China. Why not see hypocrisy, and call hypocrisy?
And to take him at face value about China's "unfair" manufacturing advantage over America is to be either blithely unaware or to ignore the fact that while Trumplestiltskin rails about this, a line of clothes bearing his name is being manufactured, yes, in China. Why not see hypocrisy, and call hypocrisy?
5
Steve,
Just because Donald Trump is not a neo-liberal does not mean his economic ideas (as inchoate as you seem to think they are), are ludicrous or crazy or even outside the mainstream.
Sure, he does not have an articulated economic philosophy (or any philosophy outside being a billionaire, non-funny version of Don Rickles), but fascists never do.
He is all about anger, emotion, and fear.
Just because Donald Trump is not a neo-liberal does not mean his economic ideas (as inchoate as you seem to think they are), are ludicrous or crazy or even outside the mainstream.
Sure, he does not have an articulated economic philosophy (or any philosophy outside being a billionaire, non-funny version of Don Rickles), but fascists never do.
He is all about anger, emotion, and fear.
2
Trump is like an out of control shot gun owner. Sometimes his pellets will strike the mark like his attitudes on China and the need to tax the wealthy. But other times they are misogynistic, zenophobic and down right silly like expecting the Mexican government to pay for a huge wall on their borders.
But this is what politicians do to get elected and attention. They try to play to everyone hoping that voters will forget the things they do not like. Bombast is no way to run a country needing a subtle hand. What Donald Trump will do as President is anyone's guess. But do we want to roll the dice or try to capture a greased pig?
Personally I still hope he runs either as a republican or independent. Perhaps enough people will wake up and vote for level headed, consistent Bernie Sanders.
But this is what politicians do to get elected and attention. They try to play to everyone hoping that voters will forget the things they do not like. Bombast is no way to run a country needing a subtle hand. What Donald Trump will do as President is anyone's guess. But do we want to roll the dice or try to capture a greased pig?
Personally I still hope he runs either as a republican or independent. Perhaps enough people will wake up and vote for level headed, consistent Bernie Sanders.
5
Other than the Donald himself, has anyone ever said Trump is a smart guy? If so, I have never heard it.
In business and in life, he got where he is today (wherever that it is) by being bold, brash and bullying, brains had nothing to do with it. It is based on greed, a willingness to make almost any claim, no matter how outrageous, and physical presence. Now he is applying those same skills to politics, trying them out on the American people.
In business and in life, he got where he is today (wherever that it is) by being bold, brash and bullying, brains had nothing to do with it. It is based on greed, a willingness to make almost any claim, no matter how outrageous, and physical presence. Now he is applying those same skills to politics, trying them out on the American people.
2
I don't understand how skimming some wealth from the extremely wealthy, wealth that doesn't do anything to stimulate a consumer driven economy, would precipitate a recession. If anything, taking that money and putting it to some use, like infrastructure improvement, would be stimulative. If all that wealth were actually being used to invest in jobs, etc. then taxing it might hurt the economy, but much of it is likely just sitting, compounding its way to preserving the .01 percent's privileged position.
4
Actually, any wealth that is invested is helping the economy. The question is, could the government take that wealth, already invested, and make it work even harder for the economy. It's not a simple question to answer.
2
Great summary, Mr. Rattner.
However, while Trump's statements on economics and most subjects are contractictory and cynically self-serving, mainstream economic thought is an insufficient paradigmatic vantage pedestal from which to base one's judgments of anybody pontificating on the economy these days.
In my view, the ONLY leading voice on economics who is speaking truth to power is Jeffrey Sachs of the U.N. and Columbia: the whole game hinges now upon global sustainable development in light of exponential population growth, climate change, basic human and animal rights, extinction of species, etc...
This is not business as usual. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
However, while Trump's statements on economics and most subjects are contractictory and cynically self-serving, mainstream economic thought is an insufficient paradigmatic vantage pedestal from which to base one's judgments of anybody pontificating on the economy these days.
In my view, the ONLY leading voice on economics who is speaking truth to power is Jeffrey Sachs of the U.N. and Columbia: the whole game hinges now upon global sustainable development in light of exponential population growth, climate change, basic human and animal rights, extinction of species, etc...
This is not business as usual. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
4
WOW! Who knew that Steve could be so harsh?
1
As with many of Mr. Rattner's opinion pieces, the real agenda is buried but effective. After listing a litany of points that most readers of this paper would easily agree with, he makes the statement that a 14.25% one time tax proposed by Trump would be a disaster. He does not back that up, but simply throws it out there as a lesson to be absorbed. Mr. Rattner's paymasters will be pleased. Somehow, Mr. Rattner has secured himself a place in this paper as a voice of the people, when in fact he is a paid mouthpiece for the 1%. As with all media properties owned by rich families here in the US, no chance is ever missed in the relentless promotion of the idea that there is no future in taxing the wealthy. Nothing to see here, move along.
16
Trump is a crony capitalist who bribes politicians in exchange for preferential treatment for his projects. Don't be surprised that he doesn't understand elementary economics---he operates in a different world, the world of the Russian mafia, where mafia, not economic, rules apply.
4
As a long-time Rattner-observer, I have always appreciated his economic expertise and wisdom, most of it with a clear progressive world view. He’s 90% right all the time. But that other 10% is what troubles me. As a very wealthy man, he can’t quite bring himself to be objectively critical of his peers. He is against more regulation of Wall Street. He is reluctant to reinstate Glass-Steagall. He dislikes Elizabeth Warren. He is an articulate, highly intelligent man, compassionate to the plight of American workers, and concerned about rising inequality, but he always stops short of the full solutions required. Because they would require challenging the status quo of the wealthy. And that makes me sad. Rattner has the acumen, but lacks the heart.
13
Trump is using demagoguery to appeal to the lowest common denominator to establish a base of political support. Rattner is within his rights to show that Trumps' economic policies make no sense. However, the message that Trump is sending and his minions are responding to is that Trump has become a success by being Trump the Mighty , not Trump the conventional economist. Rattner's article is a good start at deconstructing the aura surrounding the Donald. The WSJ reported on a link to a direct marketing firm that Mr. Winner shilled for that left a lot of losers in its wake. More such articles, such as coverage of the "hallowed halls" of Trump University and details about projects Trump has sold his name to that have gone south might drive his minions bananas. Of course, Trump has rhetorical replies drafted and rehearsed to explain his involvement in those affairs, but as his PR firm likes to say "you report, and we will decide". Hopefully Rattner and the WSJ will start a trend of serious reporting about the Donald.
2
This is one of the best critiques I've read on Trump. These are very unusual times where the popular candidate on the left (Sanders) and leading contender on right are both economically aligned in their arguments for protectionism, a policy that is universally despised by economists and serious policy makers. Trump has bought up that example about Ford multiple times, and it scares me that conservatives don't think its a dangerous narrative, even more so than insulting POWs and women. I say that because despite all the war mongering and socially backward policies, Republicans had one thing going for them to potentially get a vote from a socially liberal capitalist like me, their defense of free markets against the dangers of heavy regulation and socialism. If they can't get that right, I'm afraid they've surrendered themselves to the crazies and moderates/libertarians are lost.
21
"Republicans had one thing going for them to potentially get a vote from a socially liberal capitalist like me, their defense of free markets against the dangers of heavy regulation and socialism. If they can't get that right, I'm afraid they've surrendered themselves to the crazies and moderates/libertarians are lost."
You're kidding? Right?
You don't remember the disaster that was bush ii?
You don't remember when, before Reagan, there were good paying jobs in other sectors of the economy beside finance?
Please, pay attention to reality, not some theory that republicans are somehow magically better at fiscal stuff. They are not.
You're kidding? Right?
You don't remember the disaster that was bush ii?
You don't remember when, before Reagan, there were good paying jobs in other sectors of the economy beside finance?
Please, pay attention to reality, not some theory that republicans are somehow magically better at fiscal stuff. They are not.
1
I don't necessarily disagree. However, Barney Senders and the socialist component of the democratic party terrifies me. Hence my argument that even the perception that the Republicans are pro free markets and capitalism is a good thing for them because at least they look lesser of the two evils when it comes to economy. I agree, there is cronyism and hypocrisy in Republican party as they often conflict with true market principals.
Free markets? What about the hundreds of billions every year in corporate welfare to Fortune 500 companies that make gazillions, pay no taxes and keep all the profits offshore from here they were made? Lobbyists actually writing th e laws? What "free" market"? They have already surrendered themselves to corporations
Pleas explain how Trump's best idea would result in depression. Is that Rattner's psychological depression?
6
"He wants to build infrastructure, bolster defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, cut taxes and protect Social Security and Medicare from any trims, all while proclaiming that he’s a fiscal conservative."
How is this different from every other GOP candidate?
How is this different from every other GOP candidate?
2
Trump is not trying to impress scholars or laymen theorists of economics, he's pandering to an audience which can make him a successful candidate. Trump is skilled in attracting and keeping a loyal following using advertising and marketing principles along with a close study of public opinion.
In any case, the perception the conservatives have of economics has been proven to be so far from real that it might as well be an opium dream. It presumes that there are great invisible forces of economics that make free markets magically self regulating and always rational, with prices always representing true values, bubbles being misinterpretations, interventions in the economy being only introduction of chaos into a perfectly balance phenomenon, and efforts to mitigate risks by people pooling their resources to assure all financial security or affordable good health care to be forces of disorder. The fact that over concentration of wealth in the hands of too few caused by tax policies and rates has left us with gross inequalities and diminished ability of the government to do the most basic functions without borrowing money just does not seem to impress conservatives. Their answer is to concentrate more of the nation's productive output into private hands that have no interest in public concerns and have not been inclined to use it for the benefit of all.
In any case, the perception the conservatives have of economics has been proven to be so far from real that it might as well be an opium dream. It presumes that there are great invisible forces of economics that make free markets magically self regulating and always rational, with prices always representing true values, bubbles being misinterpretations, interventions in the economy being only introduction of chaos into a perfectly balance phenomenon, and efforts to mitigate risks by people pooling their resources to assure all financial security or affordable good health care to be forces of disorder. The fact that over concentration of wealth in the hands of too few caused by tax policies and rates has left us with gross inequalities and diminished ability of the government to do the most basic functions without borrowing money just does not seem to impress conservatives. Their answer is to concentrate more of the nation's productive output into private hands that have no interest in public concerns and have not been inclined to use it for the benefit of all.
4
The quote Mr. Rattner is 'Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds' which implies inconstancy is to be favored for persons of large intellect.
In Mr. Trump's case, I think you've confused his intellect with the size of his head, which appears to be ever-expanding while his intellect remains peanut-sized.
In Mr. Trump's case, I think you've confused his intellect with the size of his head, which appears to be ever-expanding while his intellect remains peanut-sized.
1
I think his head appearing to keep expanding is an illusion caused by that Olympic class combover.
Mr. Trump's rise to billionaire status is not as "fabulous" as he would have us believe. Mr. Trump's father was a successful real estate magnate and, as a consequence, "the Donald" began his own career as a wealthy man. That is not exactly the saga of a poor boy making good. Unless one is an absolute fool I find it difficult to believe that anyone starting out with a respectable bank roll can fail to make even more money.
However, having money is not a sign of class. The picture of Mr. Trump at an international gathering of well-educated, cosmopolitan diplomats defies description. No one could possibly take the US seriously if Trump were president. He is the male version of Sarah Palin amd Michelle Bachman with Herman Cain t thrown in on the side for a bit of flavor.
However, having money is not a sign of class. The picture of Mr. Trump at an international gathering of well-educated, cosmopolitan diplomats defies description. No one could possibly take the US seriously if Trump were president. He is the male version of Sarah Palin amd Michelle Bachman with Herman Cain t thrown in on the side for a bit of flavor.
3
Donald Trump is the only billionaire businessman running for the political office of President of the United States of America. The paragons of economic muddle are his fellow candidates inane economic "facts and truths".
Trump the businessman is playing Trump the politician where sunny honest hope and change about a glowing shining city on hill rhetoric matter most in moving voters to get elected. Trump is channeling Ronald Reagan's economic mantra that neither deficits nor debt matter as we increase government military and social welfare largesse forever. Trump is imitating the "hope and change" economic dream of Barack Obama.
Americans are not interested in electing any "serious economist" to lead the nation. Americans want to be entertained with a vision promise of a better tomorrow. Americans have the exceptional need to get to socioeconomic American "heaven" without the inconvenience of either dying or sacrificing by living a morally accountable life. Americans cannot handle nor do they want nor expect any costly bad news from their politicians.
Donald Trump's political genius is an economic muddle.
Trump the businessman is playing Trump the politician where sunny honest hope and change about a glowing shining city on hill rhetoric matter most in moving voters to get elected. Trump is channeling Ronald Reagan's economic mantra that neither deficits nor debt matter as we increase government military and social welfare largesse forever. Trump is imitating the "hope and change" economic dream of Barack Obama.
Americans are not interested in electing any "serious economist" to lead the nation. Americans want to be entertained with a vision promise of a better tomorrow. Americans have the exceptional need to get to socioeconomic American "heaven" without the inconvenience of either dying or sacrificing by living a morally accountable life. Americans cannot handle nor do they want nor expect any costly bad news from their politicians.
Donald Trump's political genius is an economic muddle.
3
Why is Rattner writing so often in the NYTimes? Who ever claimed that Trump was consistent on anything? Also, Rattner's analyses add little to the economic thinking perspectives found in the paper since there are so many other conventional hedge fund types contributing. It is more irritating than enlightening to have another millionaire lecture us on how to improve the whole economy. Rotate him with other opinionated center-right very rich guys who also claim to be speaking about the welfare of all Americans....or at least about the whole middle class. Please.
3
"The Chinese are certainly protectionists, but a shift in manufacturing jobs was inevitable. For centuries, as countries have developed, the locus of jobs has shifted based on comparative advantage."
Not according to Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/competitiveness-and-class-wa...
I really don't understand the point of one plutocrat dismissing another plutocrat's economic ideas when neither's are based on anything beyond arrogance and self-interest.
Not according to Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/competitiveness-and-class-wa...
I really don't understand the point of one plutocrat dismissing another plutocrat's economic ideas when neither's are based on anything beyond arrogance and self-interest.
1
Steve, why don't you prepare a thoughtful paper on who has added more the to the economy, you or him? Private Equity * Pay for Play = Real Value Add.
2
I wonder what would be said, if Canada said they were going to build a wall to keep American bank robbers out, and get the US to pay for it. We are getting so used to ridiculous statements, that we accept them. How about Trumps birth certificate ? Oh, thats right, he's white. And a foreign born First Lady ? Oh, the pain ! And why is there talk of citizenship for illegal alliens... why skip the Green Card process ? Green cards just like for everyone else, then Citizenship after 5 years. If you are illegal, no green card process ?
Also, the only reason CNN " our viewers in the US and AROUND the WORLD", and Fox news might be viewed "around the world", is for the ridiculous views they put forward, as a comedy show. Fox instead of the BBC ? Even RT has a more even and balanced view.
Also, the only reason CNN " our viewers in the US and AROUND the WORLD", and Fox news might be viewed "around the world", is for the ridiculous views they put forward, as a comedy show. Fox instead of the BBC ? Even RT has a more even and balanced view.
1
If you want a sampling of true far-rightwing lunacy, try reading the comments in the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed section some time. These people are seriously disconnected from reality.
There is private finance and public finance and it is obvious that Trump has no knowledge of the latter.
1
Sadly, the problem of policy formulation flying in the face of actual, seal-world evidence is hardly limited to The Donald, notwithstanding his execrably egomaniacal bombast. On most important economic and questions of the day, all GOP presidential candidate harp on platform planks turned 180 degrees away from demonstrated reality. The Republican Party lives in a parallel universe whose vision is so richly funded that it can finance the marketing effort to persuade the American public to support it.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
Steven Rattner is a Wall Street executive.
He states:
"In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
I suggest a 10% wealth tax on the very rich - as a great idea.
The conclusions drawn in his statement are an unproven and muddled mess.
I suggest he rethink his observation and get back to us.
Oh yes, let me note again that he is a Wall Street executive.
That explains quite a bit of his ........ delusion.
He states:
"In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
I suggest a 10% wealth tax on the very rich - as a great idea.
The conclusions drawn in his statement are an unproven and muddled mess.
I suggest he rethink his observation and get back to us.
Oh yes, let me note again that he is a Wall Street executive.
That explains quite a bit of his ........ delusion.
10
He also plead guilty to SEC violations. And now lectures us on what's right and wrong.
Economists cringe when they see people listening to Trump, but they are hoist on their own petard. No one listens to economists anymore, and rightly so. They disagree fundamentally about almost everything. And the one thing they agree on, that free trade would being unprecedented global prosperity, not to mention world peace, seems to have gone spectacularly wrong. Not one mainstream economist, liberal or conservative, predicted that it would lead instead to levels of inequality that would be unthinkable a few decades ago. Or that deregulated financial flows would spawn devastating financial crises in country after country, culminating a global depression followed by a decade of stagnation. Small wonder people are desperate for someone, anyone offering a different view.
5
Comparative advantage has little to do with jobs moving overseas. The lowering of tariffs on certain items and free trade, in effect, corporations lobbying governments to pick winners and losers, had led to the exportation of jobs overseas. Mr. Rattner and others of his ilk display a wanton ignorance of basic economic theory. Germany has tariff rates which are key to protecting its domestic manufacturing base from outside competition, notice how the Germans haven’t succumbed to “comparative advantage”. The despondency that has ensued domestically from the lack of manufacturing, has provided the animus for demagogues like Trump to emerge. Corporations are given tax incentives, subsidies and all of the perks associated with a first world country like an educated work force and in turn have shifted their profits overseas.
3
Trump's views reflect his narcissistic sense of omnipotence. I know someone, and it's not Candice Bergen (who has told her story,) who went out on a date with Trump decades ago. They were both in college. Trump talked nonstop about himself. He never asked my friend (very intelligent, not just a looker) anything about herself. He was just not interested in her life, her views, her opinions. Trump also picked her up in a limo, which she found embarrassing. It was their first and last date. A good politician knows how to listen, so in my opinion, Trump isn't even a good politician. He's good at drawing attention to himself, and that's about it. He's emblematic of the "selfie' culture, of Christopher Lasch's theory of a culture of narcissism. His economic and diplomatic "policies" are hot air.
5
As outrageous and convoluted as Trump's positions on every subject are, the worst his opponents who trail him in every poll have to look.
The reason is that they are more outrageous, convoluted, confused and false that he is. Look at their common mantra: the politicians in Washington are the cause of all evil in the nation. But all of them minus Trump himself and Dr. Carson are professional politicians and all, absolutely all want to move to Washington.
Their other theme: only Capitalists are right. Listen to them, do as they say. But the only real Capitalist of the bunch is Trump and all of them have banded together to attack him.
Hence the fact that Trump is miles ahead of all and everyone of them.
The reason is that they are more outrageous, convoluted, confused and false that he is. Look at their common mantra: the politicians in Washington are the cause of all evil in the nation. But all of them minus Trump himself and Dr. Carson are professional politicians and all, absolutely all want to move to Washington.
Their other theme: only Capitalists are right. Listen to them, do as they say. But the only real Capitalist of the bunch is Trump and all of them have banded together to attack him.
Hence the fact that Trump is miles ahead of all and everyone of them.
2
Mr. Rattner is against taxing the rich, but in favour of capital investment in China. What else could be expected from a Wall Street executive.
The $5.7 billion tax revenue could have been used to rebuild the country's crumbling infrastructure that is nearing third world standards. It also could have been used to relieve a generation of students living under a mountain of personal debt, so that they could begin families, buy homes and live a decent middle-class life.
The free trade model used by economists to justify the removal or tariffs and quotas is based on early 19th century economic arrangements that featured strong anti-trade government policies because tariffs were the main source of government revenues at that time. Every country that has followed Great Britain on the path to industrialization - including the US - has used tariffs to protect industry. Perhaps these economists should have studied economic history to understand how the development process unfolded. Japan, South Korea, Germany before WWI and after WWII, and China today have used export-led growth, NOT free trade, as their strategy for economic growth. Studies of NAFTA, for example, have indicated that the alleged benefits of free trade for the more economically advanced partners have been terribly overstated. Mexico has benefited and the US and Canada have not.
Yes, Mr. Trump is a salesman and promoter, not an economist, but neither was Reagan, nor Obama. So What? Hire an economist.
The $5.7 billion tax revenue could have been used to rebuild the country's crumbling infrastructure that is nearing third world standards. It also could have been used to relieve a generation of students living under a mountain of personal debt, so that they could begin families, buy homes and live a decent middle-class life.
The free trade model used by economists to justify the removal or tariffs and quotas is based on early 19th century economic arrangements that featured strong anti-trade government policies because tariffs were the main source of government revenues at that time. Every country that has followed Great Britain on the path to industrialization - including the US - has used tariffs to protect industry. Perhaps these economists should have studied economic history to understand how the development process unfolded. Japan, South Korea, Germany before WWI and after WWII, and China today have used export-led growth, NOT free trade, as their strategy for economic growth. Studies of NAFTA, for example, have indicated that the alleged benefits of free trade for the more economically advanced partners have been terribly overstated. Mexico has benefited and the US and Canada have not.
Yes, Mr. Trump is a salesman and promoter, not an economist, but neither was Reagan, nor Obama. So What? Hire an economist.
11
He's not a talented businessman. He plays one on TV. And apparently, some are too foolish, or too gullible, to tell the difference.
7
"In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
This is the kind of trickle-down nonsense we have come to expect from the ignorant rich. We don't need the likes of Steven Rattner to look down his nose at fellow-Republican Donald Trump.
This is the kind of trickle-down nonsense we have come to expect from the ignorant rich. We don't need the likes of Steven Rattner to look down his nose at fellow-Republican Donald Trump.
2
The fact that Trump still leads the field for the GOP presidential nomination reveals how ignorant and out-of-touch with realty republican pundits and its voters are.
2
I wish somebody would point out that Trump is at best a mediocre businessman.
He says he's worth $10 billion. Forbes and Bloomberg say $2 - 4 billion (I'll take their words, not his).
Please remember that 40+ years ago his daddy handed him a business worth half a billion. If he'd sold it and put his money into a basket of stocks, he'd be worth at least as much today. Amusing yourself by generating publicity is not the same thing as being a good businessman.
Dan Kravitz
He says he's worth $10 billion. Forbes and Bloomberg say $2 - 4 billion (I'll take their words, not his).
Please remember that 40+ years ago his daddy handed him a business worth half a billion. If he'd sold it and put his money into a basket of stocks, he'd be worth at least as much today. Amusing yourself by generating publicity is not the same thing as being a good businessman.
Dan Kravitz
155
Trump got involved, many years ago, with trying to outfox a real Real Estate Tycoon, Merv Griffin, and he got his lunch handed to him. It was a very public and pretty spectacular fall and it put the lie to him being a "great" businessman.
3
He is a great promoter, and initiated many successful new businesses. His father left him at best, two old buildings in NY. It was Donald that convince the NYC council to allow him permits to develop the NYC west side. He initiate remodeling of historical NYC Mid Town hotels, and on, and on....
He may not suit to be our president, but he is definitely a successful maverick business person.
He may not suit to be our president, but he is definitely a successful maverick business person.
Dear Dan,
How much are you worth?
How much are you worth?
Donald Trump used to be a Democrat, and not a particularly conservative one. He's adopted all these current positions as a tactic to poll well among Republican voters.
And it worked.
In other words, these aren't Trump's positions, he got them from Republican voters.
They aren't just some loony things he made up himself out of the blue, they're positions and beliefs that he and his pollsters saw that Republican voters had, and since he had decided to run as a Republican, he adopted them.
An army of Republican pundits are trying to pretend that it's all a mystery, but these are just the popular positions of Republican voters these days, the result of fear-mongering and hate-cheerleading from FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and others for decades now, along with of course at least some natural propensity of some to hold these xenophobic, illogical, fear-based positions.
Trump isn't just a man standing up saying crazy things, he's saying them and getting massive approval for saying them. The country has created a monster, and it's composed of many more people than just one loudmouth reality star.
And it worked.
In other words, these aren't Trump's positions, he got them from Republican voters.
They aren't just some loony things he made up himself out of the blue, they're positions and beliefs that he and his pollsters saw that Republican voters had, and since he had decided to run as a Republican, he adopted them.
An army of Republican pundits are trying to pretend that it's all a mystery, but these are just the popular positions of Republican voters these days, the result of fear-mongering and hate-cheerleading from FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and others for decades now, along with of course at least some natural propensity of some to hold these xenophobic, illogical, fear-based positions.
Trump isn't just a man standing up saying crazy things, he's saying them and getting massive approval for saying them. The country has created a monster, and it's composed of many more people than just one loudmouth reality star.
2
Rattner would just throw up his hands in the face of comparative advantage and let industry leave the U.S.
But comparative advantage isn't just surplus labor in the form of Chinese peasants living in huts who'll do the work for lower wages than obese Americans that demand unlimited cheesy-poofs and a 30-pack of Miller Lite.
Comparative advantage is also the willingness to poison our Earth with waste and carbon rather than do things responsibly.
Count me among those willing to pay a bit more for goods to have them produced in a manner that doesn't make the Earth uninhabitable for future generations.
But comparative advantage isn't just surplus labor in the form of Chinese peasants living in huts who'll do the work for lower wages than obese Americans that demand unlimited cheesy-poofs and a 30-pack of Miller Lite.
Comparative advantage is also the willingness to poison our Earth with waste and carbon rather than do things responsibly.
Count me among those willing to pay a bit more for goods to have them produced in a manner that doesn't make the Earth uninhabitable for future generations.
4
Comparing private business finance with world economics is like comparing a bottle of Dasani with the Indian Ocean.
1
The only consistency to the Donald is his nonstop campaign to keep everyone else off balance.
1
I have to comment on Trump's boundless ignorance and gracelessness. Yesterday someone asked him about Joe Biden's running. Know what he said? "He plagiarizes. I never plagiarize." This about a man who has served America in a totally honorable way for over 50 years and has the good will of nearly everyone who has ever so much as shook his hand, let alone worked with him in government.
To me this was beyond the pale, even for this moron. He could not bring himself to say anything complimentary about Biden, whose record, I would hazard to say, outstrips running a gross company and insulting every admirable person on the planet.
But I was just cheered a moment ago when I heard that the crowds he will attract at the Iowa State Fair will be comparable to Sarah Palin's when she first raised her gory head.
He will be hoisted by his own petard just like her. I just hope it's faster.
To me this was beyond the pale, even for this moron. He could not bring himself to say anything complimentary about Biden, whose record, I would hazard to say, outstrips running a gross company and insulting every admirable person on the planet.
But I was just cheered a moment ago when I heard that the crowds he will attract at the Iowa State Fair will be comparable to Sarah Palin's when she first raised her gory head.
He will be hoisted by his own petard just like her. I just hope it's faster.
3
Its odd that someone who violated the SEC laws would be given a platform to spew forth the party line.
2
As unpalatable as Mr. Trump is, and as contradictory as his economic proposals are, neither he nor his proposals seem more unpalatable or contradictory than those of the other candidates engaged in this prematurely begun spectacle of chasing the presidency (election still a very long 15 months away). At this stage of the show (and it is a show), the contestants can and will say anything to garner media attention. And the media will give it. And we must endure it (or turn off our radios, TVs, computers, and phones). This pointless column by Rattner is proof enough.
1
What Trump says isn't half as important as how he says it.
Most people know, even conservatives, the guy's a fake but what is resonating with people is the fact that he calls the political class a bunch of oafs—even by name.
Most of America is feeling cynical and frustrated at what they see: Big Money running the politicians; the lack of accountability among those who ripped the country off in the 2007 collapse; the obscene rise in money in elections and in currying favor on Capital Hill. Most of America is losing confidence that their votes actually matter, since whomever they elect inevitably sells out to the monied class.
Trump, oddly, a member in good standing of the super-rich and whose fellow denizens he casually calls out, is also saying no one in Washington cares about anything or anyone but themselves. Darned few elected representatives ever leave Washington poorer than when they got there—if they ever leave at all. It's all a big party to which Joe Sixpack in Paducah is not invited.
This is what is propelling his "candidacy."
Most people know, even conservatives, the guy's a fake but what is resonating with people is the fact that he calls the political class a bunch of oafs—even by name.
Most of America is feeling cynical and frustrated at what they see: Big Money running the politicians; the lack of accountability among those who ripped the country off in the 2007 collapse; the obscene rise in money in elections and in currying favor on Capital Hill. Most of America is losing confidence that their votes actually matter, since whomever they elect inevitably sells out to the monied class.
Trump, oddly, a member in good standing of the super-rich and whose fellow denizens he casually calls out, is also saying no one in Washington cares about anything or anyone but themselves. Darned few elected representatives ever leave Washington poorer than when they got there—if they ever leave at all. It's all a big party to which Joe Sixpack in Paducah is not invited.
This is what is propelling his "candidacy."
4
Trumpp, a successful businessman? How many times has he declatred bankruputcy? He priooved that he can succeed at taking other people's money while driving companies into the ground. Imagine what he could do to this country...
2
The fact of the matter is that free-market economies are extremely complicated things that are nearly impossible to control. Economic "doctrine" is just one of many inputs that affect economic outcomes. Global events (e.g., Greece), societal upheavals (e.g., the rise of single parent households), consumer confidence -- these are but a few of the factors beyond our control that affect our economic prosperity.
On the issue of doctrine, every point by Rattner has a counter. Yes, protective tariffs would raise prices on certain goods, but maybe those price increases would be offset by the resulting manufacturing job growth (call it a backhanded redistribution policy). Yes, deporting illegal immigrants would create a services vaccuum, but couldn't that vaccuum be filled (in time) with legal American workers? The truth is, we really have no idea.
Economist-pundits across the spectrum love to tell us the "right" way, but when they get a president who espouses their particular economic doctrine, it always goes awry. And then those pundits will bend over backwards to explain why the presumably fiscally conservative president wasn't really conservative, and so on.
Please, enough with the economist told-you-so's. If you really think you have "the answer," Mr. Rattner, run for president. Otherwise, please stop criticizing those who are actually trying to fix things.
On the issue of doctrine, every point by Rattner has a counter. Yes, protective tariffs would raise prices on certain goods, but maybe those price increases would be offset by the resulting manufacturing job growth (call it a backhanded redistribution policy). Yes, deporting illegal immigrants would create a services vaccuum, but couldn't that vaccuum be filled (in time) with legal American workers? The truth is, we really have no idea.
Economist-pundits across the spectrum love to tell us the "right" way, but when they get a president who espouses their particular economic doctrine, it always goes awry. And then those pundits will bend over backwards to explain why the presumably fiscally conservative president wasn't really conservative, and so on.
Please, enough with the economist told-you-so's. If you really think you have "the answer," Mr. Rattner, run for president. Otherwise, please stop criticizing those who are actually trying to fix things.
4
The fact is that globalization tends to flatten wages worldwide. This is because Chinese and other workers have much lower living standards. Why should American workers put up with this flattening? Low prices don't do American workers any good if their jobs have fled the country, and as unemployment increases the average American wage is kept low. Are the displaced factory workers all supposed to get jobs in banking? The "comparative advantage" in this process as far as the US is concerned is all for the profits of the big corporations which can take advantage of the much lower wages. Academic economists and newspaper columnists are not directly affected and apparently assume that all wealth gained by big corporations somehow trickles down to workers - or maybe they just don't care about the disadvantages to American workers.
China has been modernizing and growing rapidly partly because it takes advantage of demand from the US. There is no reason that China and other countries should not be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps instead of pulling US workers down. Trump's economics are largely nonsense but he does touch on truth on this issue, and he is probably right that very large tariffs would be necessary for American workers to get their share of economic growth.
China has been modernizing and growing rapidly partly because it takes advantage of demand from the US. There is no reason that China and other countries should not be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps instead of pulling US workers down. Trump's economics are largely nonsense but he does touch on truth on this issue, and he is probably right that very large tariffs would be necessary for American workers to get their share of economic growth.
3
I'll put this as simply as I can. The fact that Steven Rattner, who is a long-time Wall Street financier, writes so vehemently against Trump, just has the effect of making Trump more attractive to many people.
Trump's long stated position of raising tariffs on Chinese imports is reasonable. There are many products we could be manufacturing here in the U.S. if only the playing field were somewhat more level.
The idea of massive civil engineering and construction projects that create massive amounts of employment HERE AT HOME is essentially sound. The "who is going to pay for it" has always has been misleading. When we pay for projects of this nature from the public purse, the money does NOT leave our economy. The labor is local, the materials are local, the money simply moves around, folks get a chance at earning their chip, and the money stays within our economy.
Personally, I like the idea of returning money to our general economy by taking it from our defense budget. Build as many walls as you like :-)
Wall Street people had their chance, they messed up our economy and system good and proper with their greed, they continue to do the same. What's that old saying about the definition of lunacy being doing the same over and over again and expecting different results?
Whatever you think about Trump, doesn't matter. Wall Street et al has had its day. Real change means changing the way we do business, and maybe the time for that change is now.
Trump's long stated position of raising tariffs on Chinese imports is reasonable. There are many products we could be manufacturing here in the U.S. if only the playing field were somewhat more level.
The idea of massive civil engineering and construction projects that create massive amounts of employment HERE AT HOME is essentially sound. The "who is going to pay for it" has always has been misleading. When we pay for projects of this nature from the public purse, the money does NOT leave our economy. The labor is local, the materials are local, the money simply moves around, folks get a chance at earning their chip, and the money stays within our economy.
Personally, I like the idea of returning money to our general economy by taking it from our defense budget. Build as many walls as you like :-)
Wall Street people had their chance, they messed up our economy and system good and proper with their greed, they continue to do the same. What's that old saying about the definition of lunacy being doing the same over and over again and expecting different results?
Whatever you think about Trump, doesn't matter. Wall Street et al has had its day. Real change means changing the way we do business, and maybe the time for that change is now.
121
And what will you do when the countries upon which we're imposing tariffs decide to retaliate with tariffs of their own? Trump's policies (and general outlook on life) is that you can walk around slapping people in the face without ever expecting them to respond in kind.
1
Refreshing to see someone who understands how important manufacturing is to a country. The Chinese have laughed at us for years by hiring the most powerful lobbyists in DC who in turn negotiated the assassination of entire American industries financed by spreadsheet CEO's such as the Wall Street executive who wrote this article. If you cannot manufacture as a country you cannot defend your country period. I recently sat next to a Lockheed Engineer working on the F35 program who informed me that many key areas of the aircraft such as the cockpit are not available to be sourced in the U.S. It is getting dangerous when the key internal avionic components in our military aircraft are not made by any American company.
3
Quoting: "Personally, I like the idea of returning money to our general economy by taking it from our defense budget."
So do I. Obama misses the point.
As to whatever we may think about Trump, see Pat Buchanan's recent article claiming that the Republicans cannot afford to do without his many followers. No slight difficulty.
So do I. Obama misses the point.
As to whatever we may think about Trump, see Pat Buchanan's recent article claiming that the Republicans cannot afford to do without his many followers. No slight difficulty.
Why is Steven Rattner given a voice on the Opinion Pages of the NYTimes?
In January of this year, Steven Rattner was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” pontificating about political corruption as if he had never gotten into trouble himself for taking part in a kickback scheme to snag $150 million in pension funds.
The Columbia Journalism Review refers to Rattner as a “disgraced private equity mogul” and notes that he paid $16 million four years ago to settle SEC and New York lawsuits.
Rattner’s firm, Quadrangle, ponied up another $12 million and said what Rattner did was “inappropriate, wrong and unethical.”
He is emblematic of all the Wall Street crooks who have merely gotten slaps on their wrists for criminal behavior.
That is difficult enough to swallow, but why does he get to have a voice in a paper like the NYTimes?
In January of this year, Steven Rattner was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” pontificating about political corruption as if he had never gotten into trouble himself for taking part in a kickback scheme to snag $150 million in pension funds.
The Columbia Journalism Review refers to Rattner as a “disgraced private equity mogul” and notes that he paid $16 million four years ago to settle SEC and New York lawsuits.
Rattner’s firm, Quadrangle, ponied up another $12 million and said what Rattner did was “inappropriate, wrong and unethical.”
He is emblematic of all the Wall Street crooks who have merely gotten slaps on their wrists for criminal behavior.
That is difficult enough to swallow, but why does he get to have a voice in a paper like the NYTimes?
42
Well stated, thank you.
2
The simplistic comments in support of Mr. Trump's economic proposals displayed in this comments section are disheartening to the extent that they reveal a profound lack of critical thinking among individuals who are otherwise engaged enough to comment to The Times.
For thousands of years, perfectly reasonable people thought that the sun moved across the sky every day over a stationary Earth. And it was an unquestioned, "common sense" belief, because, well, they could SEE it do this every day – what kind of fool would deny the obvious?
When scientists came along and told them the opposite was true, they were excoriated by those who smugly believed that they knew better, unwilling to even try to grasp the larger cosmic mechanics at work. Doing so required depriving them of their comfortable illusion that they were the center of the Universe. It was not worth the effort.
Mr. Trump feeds cognitive dysfunction, but critical thought requires engaging the real world, not the world as we imagine it to be.
For thousands of years, perfectly reasonable people thought that the sun moved across the sky every day over a stationary Earth. And it was an unquestioned, "common sense" belief, because, well, they could SEE it do this every day – what kind of fool would deny the obvious?
When scientists came along and told them the opposite was true, they were excoriated by those who smugly believed that they knew better, unwilling to even try to grasp the larger cosmic mechanics at work. Doing so required depriving them of their comfortable illusion that they were the center of the Universe. It was not worth the effort.
Mr. Trump feeds cognitive dysfunction, but critical thought requires engaging the real world, not the world as we imagine it to be.
14
The curvature of the earth is actually quite visible from vantage points above the sea. It is amazing that there was ever any controversy about it being a sphere.
1
I have had this same conversation with my father, who, supports with his emotions, pieces of Trump's policies, but, when I put the piece together, as this article does, he denies that there is any inconsistency in his stance. Of course this has been Trump's strength so far, throw out simple solutions to complex problems, insult someone in the response, and then finish with telling everyone your net worth. No need to put the pieces together, his entire platform is in pieces.
6
"Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression."
This time, the wild statement is Rattner's, not Trump's. If that wealth were redistributed fairly, it would certainly not cause a depression, but an economic expansion that would broadly benefit all classes. That wealth is currently held hostage by a few folk who hoard it, rather than using it...i.e....spending it. Liberating that cash would help all of us.
This time, the wild statement is Rattner's, not Trump's. If that wealth were redistributed fairly, it would certainly not cause a depression, but an economic expansion that would broadly benefit all classes. That wealth is currently held hostage by a few folk who hoard it, rather than using it...i.e....spending it. Liberating that cash would help all of us.
34
Guess who owns the bonds Trump's proposal would have paid off.
2
seems like it to me as well
still can't see any difference between his policies and other Republicans--just the ability to say what he wants without pandering
Rattner is one of few that can punch up when talking about Trump--no credit deserved
still can't see any difference between his policies and other Republicans--just the ability to say what he wants without pandering
Rattner is one of few that can punch up when talking about Trump--no credit deserved
Is this where I line up to say something mean about Donald Trump so I can get on his "loser" list? I want to join the likes of Rattner, et. al, who will have bragging rights soon to having joined that club.
"Trump hates cats!"
"Trump hates cats!"
Maybe Trumpet is just re-phrasing (then) Candidate Richard M. Nixon's "secret plan" to end the War in Vietnam. And, we sure know how that plan went.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
4
Mr. Trumps opinions are very easy to understand and not at all muddled in my humble opinion. Recall yesterday's article "Are you smarter than other New York Times Readers?". Mr. Trump is a k=1 thinker. He thinks one step ahead to explain the consequence. Build a wall in New Mexico - ergo fewer people come across the order. Slap tariffs on import goods - ergo fewer import goods come into the United States. Remove social benefits - ergo people work harder to compensate. And the American people love k=1 because of its simplicity. It is easy to understand.
1
We'd better take back our country before it's taken away from us. Big corporations and Wall Street trumpet the wonders of the global economy. They dine at 5-star restaurants on expense accounts while the rest of us stretch our hard earned dollars at McDonalds. The pendulum has swung. Let's close the doors and erect trade barriers instead of tearing them down. It will be fun to hear the corporatists howling and complaining, but power will finally return to the people, and as a nation we will once again become the center of the world and not just a dwindling corporate profit center whose moment in history has passed.
4
Ed, see my comments above, I agree with you. Mr. Rattner and his ilk have been peddling this sort of economic advice that produced the sort of despondency and misery that enabled demagogues like Trump to be taken “seriously”. They live in bubbles and do not get to see the ruins that their “advice” has produced. Besides, as I stated earlier, if comparative advantage and free trade were a panacea, lets import more economists, Doctors and Dentists to alleviate our domestic shortages and lower the costs of services. I wonder if Mr. Rattner would place his ideals above self interest knowing someone with a similar education and background could take his place at a fraction of the cost.
3
You want to take the country back from . . . big corporations and Wall street by supporting the candidacy of Donald Trump?
How can we be a center for the world if we cut ourselves off from the world with isolationist policies?
1
One quibble. It is easy to see broad trends and conclude that, of course, we lost manufacturing jobs. But on closer inspection, we even lost them in industries like furniture making where we had an advantage in raw materials, shipping costs - and the workers lived in the rural mountains of the east and had few other job options. So much efficient US manufacturing disappeared to a tide of junk furniture made of particle board and various odds and ends. Another rural industry was leather goods, often rustic items like moccasins. Those too faded to cheap foreign goods - even as we have the leather and again the rural workers.
Economists in cities and university towns rarely see the wreckage in rural America as jobs disappeared. We need smarter thinking on this issue.
Economists in cities and university towns rarely see the wreckage in rural America as jobs disappeared. We need smarter thinking on this issue.
13
Terry, I agree with your consensus. As an immigrant, I can tell you, Economics, is taught in high school and if it was taught over here, people would see through the straw man arguments that Mr. Rattner makes. Germany has a high end manufacturing base that hasn’t been outsourced and they have enacted tariffs to protect their jobs while we have done the opposite here. Even if the converse were true and comparative advantage was indeed a boon and government should get out of the way, why haven’t we imported Doctors and Dentists from India? Why not outsource CEO’s and economists? Surely economists in other countries can provide just as good an analysis as their domestic counterparts. “Comparative advantage” is just a corporate term for give me all that I ask for and want nothing in return.
3
Terry,
RIGHT ON THE MONEY! A sad fact is that the view from the ivory towers of economists seems to be narrowly constrained, or they don't bother to look out the window.
RIGHT ON THE MONEY! A sad fact is that the view from the ivory towers of economists seems to be narrowly constrained, or they don't bother to look out the window.
2
Economists and most elitists in cities and university towns don't care one bit about rural working class Americans.
3
Trtumps big hypocrisy is that he was never a rags to riches self made man, like he pretends, but the truth is he was born into money. Another entitlement born pretender, playing resentful hard worker. America loves theater. How else did the Bushes garner 2 plus Presidents. The truth was that H.W. Bush was never a war hero, either. And his son, W, was another even bigger fake.
Trump will win the GOP nomination, because he will outfake all the other contendas.
Trump will win the GOP nomination, because he will outfake all the other contendas.
7
George H.W. Bush served honorably in a combat position in WWII. He like all veterans is a hero. I agree with everything you said about Trump, but find it odd that you echo his attack on John McCain with your attach on George H.W. Bush.
Mr. Trump would not have such a big stage to, as you suggest, "get off of," if the media (all media) would stop utilizing the majority of its time writing and talking about him and interviewing him in person and giving him even more free campaign time by letting him call into every cable news and radio show.
You want Mr. Tump off the stage? Start ignoring him. And, stop front-loading all of the polling questions with questions about Mr. Trump.
You want Mr. Tump off the stage? Start ignoring him. And, stop front-loading all of the polling questions with questions about Mr. Trump.
19
I don't care where he went to school, Trump is clearly too simple-minded to ponder the subtleties of policy choices driven by economic analyses. His is a binary world of good and evil, winners and losers, hunters and prey.
The scary part is that there is this hard-core, seemingly unbreakable core of folks on the right who buy into this morality play framework.
The scary part is that there is this hard-core, seemingly unbreakable core of folks on the right who buy into this morality play framework.
20
I was with you until this: “In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression.”
If this tax was indeed only on the very rich, then I think it is disingenuous to refer to it using the generic “$5.7 trillion tax increase” formulation, which implies that it would resemble our more familiar across-the-board tax rate increases. In fact, I don't see why such a transfer would plunge the economy into recession, or have any substantial effect on it at all. Could it really be that extremely wealthy people throwing their money around or keeping it invested overseas is such an important fundamental that transferring 14.25% of it into government coffers would have a profoundly negative effect on our economy? Please explain that to me.
If this tax was indeed only on the very rich, then I think it is disingenuous to refer to it using the generic “$5.7 trillion tax increase” formulation, which implies that it would resemble our more familiar across-the-board tax rate increases. In fact, I don't see why such a transfer would plunge the economy into recession, or have any substantial effect on it at all. Could it really be that extremely wealthy people throwing their money around or keeping it invested overseas is such an important fundamental that transferring 14.25% of it into government coffers would have a profoundly negative effect on our economy? Please explain that to me.
272
Your questions, Greg, are my questions.
The "of course" tone of Rattner's statement, and all similar statements without supporting data, should raise red flags to voters.
For example, has this approach (one-time tax-the-very-rich) ever been tried? If so, what were the results? If not, then isn't this statement by Rattner much too self-serving and propagandist to be taken as fact, as he would have us do?
The "of course" tone of Rattner's statement, and all similar statements without supporting data, should raise red flags to voters.
For example, has this approach (one-time tax-the-very-rich) ever been tried? If so, what were the results? If not, then isn't this statement by Rattner much too self-serving and propagandist to be taken as fact, as he would have us do?
2
Thank you for this -- I was planning to make a similar comment.
Perhaps the writer's attitude is due to his being one of the people who would have had to pay the tax?
Perhaps the writer's attitude is due to his being one of the people who would have had to pay the tax?
1
Rattner was probably concerned with the affect that would have on him and his friends.
The ignorant people who support and believe in this behind-the-curtain charlatan don't read the NY Times. They are going to miss Mr. Rattner's observations. One can only imagine their eye rolls and the brain freeze when they hear a statement like "the locus of jobs has shifted based on comparative advantage." In order to get these people to respond in any way, you have to talk dumb the way Donald Trump speaks. His audience is not much different from Sarah Palin's, and it's YUGE
The media seems to forget Jay Leno's popular "Jaywalking" segment of The Tonight Show. There are a lot of uneducated people in America with loud voices. They don't read. They don't know where Afghanistan is on a map. They don't know much about John McCain. They can't handle any depth of thought. Trump appeals to the uneducated. His brass flash, arm candy, cheap slogans, and his narcissistic chest-pounding are all these simple thinkers need in a hero. He's a reality TV star, and that's credential enough.
Trump has tapped into something all right. The media, and fellow Republicans, are afraid to call it what it really is: stupid people.
The media seems to forget Jay Leno's popular "Jaywalking" segment of The Tonight Show. There are a lot of uneducated people in America with loud voices. They don't read. They don't know where Afghanistan is on a map. They don't know much about John McCain. They can't handle any depth of thought. Trump appeals to the uneducated. His brass flash, arm candy, cheap slogans, and his narcissistic chest-pounding are all these simple thinkers need in a hero. He's a reality TV star, and that's credential enough.
Trump has tapped into something all right. The media, and fellow Republicans, are afraid to call it what it really is: stupid people.
3
My question is, why are these people (disinterested, anti-intellectual, uneducated) allowed to vote? It's an interesting debacle we have in this country.
Ratner still is talking about "the nation’s debt mountain." Let's look a some history on the debt.
After WWI, we had 10 years of balanced budgets. Here are the debt figures:
07/01/1920 $25,952,456,406.16
06/30/1930 $16,185,309,831.43
In 1929, the debt was only 16% of GDP
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED !?
BTW History shows us that every time we embraced austerity and balanced the budget for a while, we got a depression and every major depression followed a period of surpluses.
After WWII we had even more debt as a percent of GDP, but we had mostly deficits for 27 years,
Here are the debt figures:
06/28/1946 $269,422,099,173.26
06/30/1973 $458,141,605,312.09
As you can see, the debt almost doubled, but we got the interstate highway system, Medicare. a median real household income that was 74% larger, and GDP growth averaged 3.8%.
BTW the public debt was 109% of GDP in 1946 and the gross debt was 121%. Those figures are about 74% and 101% today.
Please explain why we ever have to pay off or even pay down the debt. Debt service is running at 0.8% of GDP, the lowest in about 60 years.
When did we pay off the debt from WWII? When did too much debt EVER negatively impact the economy? Many times (e.g. 1929) too little debt sure did.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm
After WWI, we had 10 years of balanced budgets. Here are the debt figures:
07/01/1920 $25,952,456,406.16
06/30/1930 $16,185,309,831.43
In 1929, the debt was only 16% of GDP
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED !?
BTW History shows us that every time we embraced austerity and balanced the budget for a while, we got a depression and every major depression followed a period of surpluses.
After WWII we had even more debt as a percent of GDP, but we had mostly deficits for 27 years,
Here are the debt figures:
06/28/1946 $269,422,099,173.26
06/30/1973 $458,141,605,312.09
As you can see, the debt almost doubled, but we got the interstate highway system, Medicare. a median real household income that was 74% larger, and GDP growth averaged 3.8%.
BTW the public debt was 109% of GDP in 1946 and the gross debt was 121%. Those figures are about 74% and 101% today.
Please explain why we ever have to pay off or even pay down the debt. Debt service is running at 0.8% of GDP, the lowest in about 60 years.
When did we pay off the debt from WWII? When did too much debt EVER negatively impact the economy? Many times (e.g. 1929) too little debt sure did.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm
8
@Len, you seem to actually understand the fundamental counterintuitivity of macroeconomics, which is apparently beyond the ken of 99.9% of Americans.
What is truly insane is that rather than exploit this ignorance to make vast wealth in the markets, you keep trying to enlighten the masses.
Good luck!
What is truly insane is that rather than exploit this ignorance to make vast wealth in the markets, you keep trying to enlighten the masses.
Good luck!
The US has lost manufacturing jobs to other countries because .... the US has imposed crushing regulations on manufacturing in this country. We did this to ourselves.
1
Because Wall Street wants bigger profits which means cheap labor.
1
Does the average American like the way this country is going? No. Do we need advice from Wall Street? Hell no!
4
Here's a wager. One Ben Franklin to your one George Washington. Trump couldn't pass a 9th grade algebra test.
He reminds me of a gag gift I gave my father one year: a pair of false teeth on wheels that, when wound up and set loose, clattered around the table in random paths until the spring was free of tension. What emerges from his mouth is no more chatter from a mouth unhinged from intelligence.
He reminds me of a gag gift I gave my father one year: a pair of false teeth on wheels that, when wound up and set loose, clattered around the table in random paths until the spring was free of tension. What emerges from his mouth is no more chatter from a mouth unhinged from intelligence.
3
Rum Trump, please, please RUN! He is the truth to the garbage the GOP has spewed since GWB and Darth Cheney. The republicans hate him because he says the same things they say in code and it don't sound so great when they speak the plain truth. The conservative platform is so out there that when confronted with the truth it's laughable.
4
Trump is not a conventional businessman who worked his way up and in the process educated himself in the nature of economics. Trump is merely an inheritor born into wealth without the schooling of self-development.
4
I'm old enough to remember the presidential runs of Marvin Kitman and Pat Paulson. They were comedians who used the campaign as their shtick. Le Donald seems a related phenomena but coming from a totally different direction. Glad I'm not a Republican.
4
"The list of Mr. Trump’s wrongheaded ideas goes on and on: We shouldn’t increase the minimum wage, which is well below historic levels, after adjustment for inflation. Corporate taxes should be eliminated. Global warming is a fantasy."
As these are pretty much exactly the same positions that the rest of the Republican candidates hold on these issues, how is it that Trump is uniquely "outside the boundaries"? Isn't it more accurate to say the Republican Party has gone completely over the bend?
As these are pretty much exactly the same positions that the rest of the Republican candidates hold on these issues, how is it that Trump is uniquely "outside the boundaries"? Isn't it more accurate to say the Republican Party has gone completely over the bend?
3
I have to laugh...There are just as many rabid Trump supporters on the NYT op-ed comment pages as there are on the WSJ comment pages. And these people aren't just looking at Trump as a GOP spoiler either!
I don't have faith in the guy. I must admit however that it can be difficult to have faith in anyone running for public office these days regardless of their party affiliation. But I'm not ready to jump on the Trump train and fly that far off the reservation yet.
I don't have faith in the guy. I must admit however that it can be difficult to have faith in anyone running for public office these days regardless of their party affiliation. But I'm not ready to jump on the Trump train and fly that far off the reservation yet.
3
You should take a close look at Kasich; you may be pleasantly surprised.
"Confronted recently by one journalist about his policy prescriptions, Mr. Trump replied: “You’ll be happy, believe me. You’ll be happy.” I’ll be happy when he is off the stage."
Not me. I love that he has so much support from so many conservatives. He's exposing so much of what they are about, how much they know and how little they understand. They think they know how our nation came to be in he economic decline we are in, but would do more of what got us where we are. Kind of like fighting fire with gasoline.
Not me. I love that he has so much support from so many conservatives. He's exposing so much of what they are about, how much they know and how little they understand. They think they know how our nation came to be in he economic decline we are in, but would do more of what got us where we are. Kind of like fighting fire with gasoline.
3
A request to the Times and commenters:
Please stop talking about Trump who is largely a media product. Let's get on to the issues.
Please stop talking about Trump who is largely a media product. Let's get on to the issues.
8
This is how they win elections: by NOT running on truth and hard realities, but by offering charlatanism. The most amazing thing is that they both believe their own lies and receive praise.
I decry lefties for always thinking that Lucy (Republicans) will hold onto the football while Charlie (Democrats) think they will get to kick it this time.
Sure if your article simply declared "they are all charlatans", it would seem petty and non-constructive, but I thought that was what they paid those of letters for: to carefully skewer while making one think they were getting praised?
I decry lefties for always thinking that Lucy (Republicans) will hold onto the football while Charlie (Democrats) think they will get to kick it this time.
Sure if your article simply declared "they are all charlatans", it would seem petty and non-constructive, but I thought that was what they paid those of letters for: to carefully skewer while making one think they were getting praised?
The other day Trump asked with a rhetorical flourish: "Ford is shifting millions of jobs to Mexico. How does that help us?!!!" As if it can't possibly help us. But he's wrong.
Even out here in mid-Michigan, we know the answer to that. All of us who don't make Fords or their parts benefit from being able to buy cheaper Fords. And if Fords are cheaper, then Honda, Toyota and Chrysler all have to compete with those lower prices, so their cars may be cheaper, too.
So, unless you are a Ford employee or a supplier who loses her job, and BTW not ALL Ford jobs are going to Mexico, you are better off by buying less expensive cars. Isn't that the original and whole point of off-shoring? Aren't all those folks shopping at Wal-Mart willing to stick it to their neighbors who lose their jobs so they can buy more cheap stuff made in China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, etc? Why pick on Ford?
And about bringing all those jobs back, just last week the Times did a story on Chinese cotton processing mills re-opening in the American south. But instead of thousands of jobs, there will be 500 new jobs created at a new factory. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/business/chinese-textile-mills-are-now... A single automated plant makes 85 tons of yarn per day. Key word: automated.
So on two basic factual issues relating to jobs, Trump is just dead wrong. I would have thought a Master of the Universe would know better.
Even out here in mid-Michigan, we know the answer to that. All of us who don't make Fords or their parts benefit from being able to buy cheaper Fords. And if Fords are cheaper, then Honda, Toyota and Chrysler all have to compete with those lower prices, so their cars may be cheaper, too.
So, unless you are a Ford employee or a supplier who loses her job, and BTW not ALL Ford jobs are going to Mexico, you are better off by buying less expensive cars. Isn't that the original and whole point of off-shoring? Aren't all those folks shopping at Wal-Mart willing to stick it to their neighbors who lose their jobs so they can buy more cheap stuff made in China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, etc? Why pick on Ford?
And about bringing all those jobs back, just last week the Times did a story on Chinese cotton processing mills re-opening in the American south. But instead of thousands of jobs, there will be 500 new jobs created at a new factory. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/business/chinese-textile-mills-are-now... A single automated plant makes 85 tons of yarn per day. Key word: automated.
So on two basic factual issues relating to jobs, Trump is just dead wrong. I would have thought a Master of the Universe would know better.
8
I agreed with this until the part about manufacturing job loss being inevitable. Notwithstanding Trump's cognitive dissonance and demagoguery, his appeal in fact is related to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., a trend that has devastated the middle class and exacerbated inequality.
According to World Bank figures, the share of American male workers in industry (including manufacturing, mining/quarrying, construction etc) is 25%. But in Germany and Japan - countries about as wealthy per capita as us - it's 40% and 33%, respectively. And both countries have significant trade surpluses with us.
Far from inevitability, we chose to abandon manufacturing by incenting companies to replace American workers with cheap foreign labor and robots. The "service economy" is divided between workers with low education and low wages - who in previous generations would have made high wages and benefits in manufacturing - and well-educated workers who must often take on enormous debt to get the degrees they need so they'll have a chance of finding a good job.
If you can look beyond economic orthodoxy, you'll see why the Tea Party and Trump on the right and Sanders on the left carry such appeal for so many voters.
According to World Bank figures, the share of American male workers in industry (including manufacturing, mining/quarrying, construction etc) is 25%. But in Germany and Japan - countries about as wealthy per capita as us - it's 40% and 33%, respectively. And both countries have significant trade surpluses with us.
Far from inevitability, we chose to abandon manufacturing by incenting companies to replace American workers with cheap foreign labor and robots. The "service economy" is divided between workers with low education and low wages - who in previous generations would have made high wages and benefits in manufacturing - and well-educated workers who must often take on enormous debt to get the degrees they need so they'll have a chance of finding a good job.
If you can look beyond economic orthodoxy, you'll see why the Tea Party and Trump on the right and Sanders on the left carry such appeal for so many voters.
135
Yet where does Trump manufacture al his brands? Not in America. And he is proud of it when asked
Trump and the Republicans have the same problem. If they want to build a wall, how will they pay for it?
4
Tom, clearly you didn't get the memo. Mexico will pay for it.
I'm also wondering where is the money coming from for this massive military build-up that the lunatic republicans assume is so essential.
He said. Hadn't you heard? Mexico will pay for it. No?
Trump is no crazier on economic policy than the rest of the bunch. Why shouldn't iPhones be assembled in the US? Apple's cash pile reaches to the sky, and they don't know what to do with it. You seem to think that bringing these jobs back would interfere with the "inevitable" forces driving us to all be investment bankers. A wealth tax would cause a depression? Really? Maybe in the Ferrari sector. How about we take that cash and build a world-class rail network in this country. Respectable Republican policies can be characterized as
1. Cut entitlements
2. Tax cuts for the wealthy
3. More defense spending
4. Pins in voodoo dolls
5. Balanced budgets and 4% growth
That's the recipe for a Depression, not talking mean to rich folks.
1. Cut entitlements
2. Tax cuts for the wealthy
3. More defense spending
4. Pins in voodoo dolls
5. Balanced budgets and 4% growth
That's the recipe for a Depression, not talking mean to rich folks.
38
6. Removing pins from selected voodoo dolls
great comment Rich888
great comment Rich888
Trump is indeed a refreshing candidate. Usually we find arm chair quater backs like Rattner speaking up after the fact; why would anyone doubt Trump in comparison to the other candidates.
1
Obviously, the storied doldrums of August news are upon us when Steven Rattner is reduced to commenting on The Donald’s economic views.
We’ll ALL be happy when Trump has consumed his fifteen minutes and exits, stage absurd. But writing columns on him because there’s little else to write about doesn’t hasten that day.
We’ll ALL be happy when Trump has consumed his fifteen minutes and exits, stage absurd. But writing columns on him because there’s little else to write about doesn’t hasten that day.
8
Mr. Luettgen - I completely agree with you, such a waste of time. But Steven Rattner has not been reduced to his comments at all. He writes about Trump because it is easy, and by regurgitating common knowledge, he can add "NYT writer" to his comeback resume. Rattner is still rebuilding his arc after his own pay-to-play scandal---or his last one, or at least the one in which he was caught. Rattner has only a BA in economics and, since switching from journalism, decided to instead build his career by insinuating himself into the finance industry. He brown-nosed the rich and studied them, even emulated their clothing and shamelessly climbed the ladder to Bloomberg's house. He still has nothing new or interesting to say, and just because the NYT's Oestricher likes him does not mean he is worth reading. Look to other news sources for fresh criticism of our economic "muddle" and policy, good writers that don't use annoying quotation marks and parentheses all over the page. There are many gifted, well educated and sincere journalists, whose net worth is not 400 million, who can offer real perspective, one that pertains to those of us in the 33% tax bracket. Rattner has stated that we are an aspirational society...therefore, he aspires to being a billionaire, like Trump. Indeed, they have more in common than not.
2
Thinking requires time and energy. Who has time for that?
1
Quite frankly I am tired of criticism of someone's beliefs without your own plan to succeed. Clealry government policies over many years have not unleashed the economic potential of the United States so what is your solution.
4
First, have Pres Clinton explain why Globalization is good for people who used to be called Working Class; have him explain why all his re-tooling for post industrial work idea did not work; have him explain why he prefers the company of billionaires and, finds reason to hob nob with Mr Trump.
Then, let's all excoriate Mr Trump.
Then, let's all excoriate Mr Trump.
4
As Karl Weber suggests below, the idea that business leaders understand basic economics better than anyone else is simply an illusion. That illusion, unfortunately, is the source of the tiresome refrain in this country that no one should serve as president who lacks experience in meeting a payroll. A CEO may excel at the tactics necessary to ensure the success of his company in the marketplace without possessing any understanding of the forces that drive the larger economy.
The banking geniuses who helped to create the real estate bubble that exploded in 2008 parlayed their knowledge of the intricacies of the financial system into short-term profits but failed to realize that the real economy bears little resemblance to a casino. Given his background in Atlantic City, it seems entirely possible that a President Trump might also confuse the sleight of hand tactics of a gambling hall proprietor (or shadow banker) for the real investments in education and other forms of infrastructure necessary to improve the American economy. Blackjack, anyone?
The banking geniuses who helped to create the real estate bubble that exploded in 2008 parlayed their knowledge of the intricacies of the financial system into short-term profits but failed to realize that the real economy bears little resemblance to a casino. Given his background in Atlantic City, it seems entirely possible that a President Trump might also confuse the sleight of hand tactics of a gambling hall proprietor (or shadow banker) for the real investments in education and other forms of infrastructure necessary to improve the American economy. Blackjack, anyone?
143
More likely he is on top of his game because he knows all the odds.
> A CEO may excel at the tactics necessary to ensure the success of
> his company in the marketplace without possessing any understanding
> of the forces that drive the larger economy.
Please. Do you think economists understand things any better? Not to any practical benefit. You can't find two who agree, or one who can predict the impact of policy changes on the economy for more than two quarters out.
Yes, as specialists they have names for things. But knowing what to call something is in no way equivalent to knowing what it IS.
> his company in the marketplace without possessing any understanding
> of the forces that drive the larger economy.
Please. Do you think economists understand things any better? Not to any practical benefit. You can't find two who agree, or one who can predict the impact of policy changes on the economy for more than two quarters out.
Yes, as specialists they have names for things. But knowing what to call something is in no way equivalent to knowing what it IS.
Anything that we Americans absolutely need, should not be made in China. Our US Military depends on things made in China. Absolutely needs these products, according to a general on 60 Minutes last year, and we have to rely and depend on China to do make them.
WHO does that make sense to except those plutocrats that just want to make more and more and more money. Doesn't America come first ever with these people? How can we rely on China if, perhaps, someday we go to war with them? It's crazy, doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's a real symptom of how dysfunctional America is right now. Germany kept it's manufacturing base. What happened to us?
WHO does that make sense to except those plutocrats that just want to make more and more and more money. Doesn't America come first ever with these people? How can we rely on China if, perhaps, someday we go to war with them? It's crazy, doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's a real symptom of how dysfunctional America is right now. Germany kept it's manufacturing base. What happened to us?
6
The real questions is-is Trump right-does his logic add up. Will it really work.
close examination, regardless of what his ratings are, just don't add up.
Careful examination reveals a total lack of understanding as to what really can be done. Rather is correct, the jobs we lost in the US is simply the universal shift by manufactures,etc., for cheaper labor and materials. Nothing will stop that.
Building a wall along the Mexican boarder is absurd. Trump is a man of excess and thoughtless and careless thinking. He is at very least a very dangerous person that will bankrupt this country as he has done with some many of his companies. Be careful for what you wish for.
close examination, regardless of what his ratings are, just don't add up.
Careful examination reveals a total lack of understanding as to what really can be done. Rather is correct, the jobs we lost in the US is simply the universal shift by manufactures,etc., for cheaper labor and materials. Nothing will stop that.
Building a wall along the Mexican boarder is absurd. Trump is a man of excess and thoughtless and careless thinking. He is at very least a very dangerous person that will bankrupt this country as he has done with some many of his companies. Be careful for what you wish for.
1
You can't have an open border in a welfare state. It's insane, impractical, counter-productive and very short term minded.
1
So many other mistakes in what you say. You point out that tradeoffs would raise prices on imported goods--duh. That's how they work to bring jobs back here. You point out that a trade eat would result--duh. But since we are running s higher trade deficit, that's to our advantage.
Your claim that it would be costly to deport illegal immigrants is risible. How much does it cost us to support American workers who are laid off of underpaid because of unfair competition from illegals? And do you honestly think we can't afford to build a border fence? Laughable.
You're right of course that Trump has said some stupid (and offensive) things in his attempt to get the Republican nomination. Warning denial chief among them. But his economic policies are actually the best out there, overall, as everything depends on reducing globalization with third world countries and no one else is addressing that problem. And his other proposals are more liberal, eg, he wants to preserve social security and Medicare and it seems Obama's--if you were brighter, you would see that the reason his proposal is similar is that it's a political feint.
Your claim that it would be costly to deport illegal immigrants is risible. How much does it cost us to support American workers who are laid off of underpaid because of unfair competition from illegals? And do you honestly think we can't afford to build a border fence? Laughable.
You're right of course that Trump has said some stupid (and offensive) things in his attempt to get the Republican nomination. Warning denial chief among them. But his economic policies are actually the best out there, overall, as everything depends on reducing globalization with third world countries and no one else is addressing that problem. And his other proposals are more liberal, eg, he wants to preserve social security and Medicare and it seems Obama's--if you were brighter, you would see that the reason his proposal is similar is that it's a political feint.
6
Josh,
If there is a fundamental tenet dearly held by any Progressive worth the label it is the desire, above all else, for a more equitable society. This does not mean equal outcomes or even equal opportunity, it simply means striving for *more* equity.
The problem with your proscription is that you believe efforts at equity can be confined to domestic boundaries. This is, and *always* has been, a global system and equity has global dimensions. Your statement:
"But his economic policies are actually the best out there, overall, as everything depends on reducing globalization with third world countries"
is exactly and precisely incorrect. Everything depends on correct managing what is immutably global. To reduce security risks and develop a more resilient web of global societies it is imperative to address the inequities between developed, developing and least developed countries. This is the global version of the imperative to address inequity between affluent suburbs and stagnant urban centers.
Progressive need to get off this 'anti-globalization' kick. You can not stop the tide, you can only plan for and accommodate it, or suffer from it.
Trump is an ignorant, bombastic, and largely incoherent trust fund baby who has managed to squander much of the immense advantage he received at birth. He reminds me of the late Friday night college conversations, after too many beers, that solved all the problems of the world by 2AM. It's called 'sophomoric' for a reason.
If there is a fundamental tenet dearly held by any Progressive worth the label it is the desire, above all else, for a more equitable society. This does not mean equal outcomes or even equal opportunity, it simply means striving for *more* equity.
The problem with your proscription is that you believe efforts at equity can be confined to domestic boundaries. This is, and *always* has been, a global system and equity has global dimensions. Your statement:
"But his economic policies are actually the best out there, overall, as everything depends on reducing globalization with third world countries"
is exactly and precisely incorrect. Everything depends on correct managing what is immutably global. To reduce security risks and develop a more resilient web of global societies it is imperative to address the inequities between developed, developing and least developed countries. This is the global version of the imperative to address inequity between affluent suburbs and stagnant urban centers.
Progressive need to get off this 'anti-globalization' kick. You can not stop the tide, you can only plan for and accommodate it, or suffer from it.
Trump is an ignorant, bombastic, and largely incoherent trust fund baby who has managed to squander much of the immense advantage he received at birth. He reminds me of the late Friday night college conversations, after too many beers, that solved all the problems of the world by 2AM. It's called 'sophomoric' for a reason.
Bernie's economic policies are the best out there.
And Josh, you may be interested in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_th...
Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes that the belief that illegal migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false". Lipman asserts that "illegal immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."
Or
The CBO concluded that most of the estimates determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." CBO said "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
And Josh, you may be interested in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_th...
Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes that the belief that illegal migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false". Lipman asserts that "illegal immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."
Or
The CBO concluded that most of the estimates determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." CBO said "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
1
Thanks, Len. Interesting stuff. Can't say much now as I'm on my phone but suffice it to say that Sanders is my favorite candidate.
Many people seem to think that Trump is "fun", or interesting, or some sort of distraction. But I gather he is the leading vote-getter among republican primary voters in the current crowded and very un-funny "clown car" of right-wing presidential hopefuls, so how funny is THAT? Why don't republicans just find another actor with early dementia to lionize?
14
The abjection of our political situation is the only true challenge today. Only facing up to this situation in all its desperation can help us get out of it.
Oh, come off it. Trump is absolutely right about trade and economists were absolutely wrong. Every businessman knows that American manufacturing can't compete against slave labor conditions and wages, brown air, currency manipulation and protectionism.
The notion that efficiency is the cause of lower manufacturing employment is risible--do you think that foxconn is laying off workers?
We're I too manufacture a product again, the calculus would be simple--s Chinese factory can sell it to me for less than I could manufacture it in the States. That wouldn't leave me much of a choice, given that my competitors wouldn't hesitate to move their production overseas and I would have to compete on price.
Economists led us down the garden path of globalization with the third world and it has proved an unmitigated disaster, driving down wages, slowing economic growth, and threatening the American dream.
The notion that efficiency is the cause of lower manufacturing employment is risible--do you think that foxconn is laying off workers?
We're I too manufacture a product again, the calculus would be simple--s Chinese factory can sell it to me for less than I could manufacture it in the States. That wouldn't leave me much of a choice, given that my competitors wouldn't hesitate to move their production overseas and I would have to compete on price.
Economists led us down the garden path of globalization with the third world and it has proved an unmitigated disaster, driving down wages, slowing economic growth, and threatening the American dream.
24
Trump is like P.T. Barnum, except that he has nothing under the big top tent. He makes claims such as illegal immigrants killing Americans, while ignoring the fact that we seem to be pretty adept at killing each other off as well. He never talks about anything of substance really in his speeches. I'd be more interested, or take him more seriously if he were treating the campaign as he would treat applying for a business loan. No bank is going to loan you money by you walking in and saying: "I've got a great idea and need startup money, but I will not tell you anything about the idea or plan until after you give me the cash."
11
What Trump says is basically true. Other countries have industrial policies to favor and grow their own industries. If they sign 'free trade' pacts, then they cheat. 'Free trade' would be a good thing if everyone obeyed the rules, and let the invisible hand of the market determine winners and losers, but no government except our seems to want to do that.
The Chinese steal our intellectual property and copy everything we have developed. The Europeans give out bribes to third-world countries to buy their planes and ships. The Saudis manipulate the price of oil by controlling production. The Indians provide cheap software written by high-school graduates with phony resumes showing a master's degree in computer science. Every country has a scam, except for the US!
This is the real world, you dumb economists!
The Chinese steal our intellectual property and copy everything we have developed. The Europeans give out bribes to third-world countries to buy their planes and ships. The Saudis manipulate the price of oil by controlling production. The Indians provide cheap software written by high-school graduates with phony resumes showing a master's degree in computer science. Every country has a scam, except for the US!
This is the real world, you dumb economists!
14
The only thing inevitable about manufacturing plants being shifted off-shore is the insistent greed of the investor class and its loathing of labor. No country that relies upon others for its agriculture, goods and technical services will ever be great or great again. Off-shore Wall Street.
55
Rattner doesn't get Trump - but that's OK because Trump is not speaking to him anyway.
And "TRUMPANOMICS" is simply this - America is still the greatest country in the world, but we haven't been acting like one. And once we start embracing our greatness again, economic success will follow.
And that makes Trump by far the most electable candidate.
Even Trump's ADD stream of consciousness way of speaking, ridiculed by the elites, is embraced the masses. They get it. Because that's how most real people speak. And it's refreshing - because unlike the carefully crafted teleprompter-ready speeches of politicians which sound profound but say nothing, when Trump talks - no matter how disjointed his patter may be, you know exactly what he is saying, and the point he is making.
As a result, Trump's crossover appeal is HUUUUUGE! - and I believe a large part of his "silent majority" are Democrats that are sick their party has moved so far left and is led by a President who loathes America, a President who hates his fellow Americans.
And "TRUMPANOMICS" is simply this - America is still the greatest country in the world, but we haven't been acting like one. And once we start embracing our greatness again, economic success will follow.
And that makes Trump by far the most electable candidate.
Even Trump's ADD stream of consciousness way of speaking, ridiculed by the elites, is embraced the masses. They get it. Because that's how most real people speak. And it's refreshing - because unlike the carefully crafted teleprompter-ready speeches of politicians which sound profound but say nothing, when Trump talks - no matter how disjointed his patter may be, you know exactly what he is saying, and the point he is making.
As a result, Trump's crossover appeal is HUUUUUGE! - and I believe a large part of his "silent majority" are Democrats that are sick their party has moved so far left and is led by a President who loathes America, a President who hates his fellow Americans.
7
@Matt Wood in NC: your comments remind me of the segment of the Tea Party which insists that 80% of the country is with them despite poll numbers which consistently show them hovering around 18%. Trump is a buffoon who will flame out long before the GOP convention - pity that as he is entertaining.
19
The appeal of Trump continues to baffle the pundits. It can only be explained by the fact there is a segment of the electorate of which Matt Wood is a good example. If you really believe that Obama hates our country, then you will believe anything and follow anyone.
It is the Mr. Woods of this country that I find really frightening.
It is the Mr. Woods of this country that I find really frightening.
14
Beware...the Trumpicons have been fetched from their recent lobotomies to comment on this article!!!
1
Trump is a bit like a Chinese fortune cookie: you can take nearly any/every claim he makes and add the words "except Congress" and it becomes hilarious.
3
Trump is a lot of fun. I am over 70 and I can't recall a more ludicrous presidential candidate. I hope that he does run a third party campaign. That would mean the election of a Democrat. No Republican should be allowed anywhere near the White House.
99
Like many politicians Trump is a fool, in the historical sense. He prances around making nonsensical statements, depending on the smiles of his audience to gauge his success. He's just 'boosting his brand asset'.
He doesn't need to know economics, or anything for that matter, except human nature. Even Rattner is among those effectively being played.
Limited though he is, and he is... very, the problem isn't Trump, perhaps it's US.
But I have faith in the electorate. We allow him to entertain us for now, but will quickly usher him from the room when the adults reenter for serious discussions.
He doesn't need to know economics, or anything for that matter, except human nature. Even Rattner is among those effectively being played.
Limited though he is, and he is... very, the problem isn't Trump, perhaps it's US.
But I have faith in the electorate. We allow him to entertain us for now, but will quickly usher him from the room when the adults reenter for serious discussions.
3
Adults? Sorry to use your comment as my fulcrum ... but: D. Trump is an adult ... do we mean by "adult" Someone Who Agrees With Us?
Name one "adult", please, just one of them, that will reenter the room.
I would like to know who the adults are. (this request goes for everyone, thank you)
Name one "adult", please, just one of them, that will reenter the room.
I would like to know who the adults are. (this request goes for everyone, thank you)
2
You've got to be kidding. You have faith in the electorate. The 'electorate' elected George Bush, case closed.
5
I saw this week that he met with Arthur Laffer and Steve Forbes to get their 'advice' on economic policy ! The "Laffer" curve theory has been totally disproved and Forbes is a big advocate of eliminating taxes on the wealthy. Mr. Trump also mentioned folks like Henry Kravis and Jack Welch for possible economic positions in his cabinet (LOL). Just what we need at this time in the country, more vulture capitalist corporate plunderers to enact policies by the rich, for the rich and of the rich !!
I'm kind of surprised you aren't endorsing these ideas Mr. Ratner ?
I'm kind of surprised you aren't endorsing these ideas Mr. Ratner ?
36
"In 1999, to address the problem of too much federal debt, Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25% percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession"
Mr. Ratner, I don't even think the very rich would even notice the money was missing.
From the Forbes 400 list for 2013, here's the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s (i.e., Walmart) descendants and their wealth rankings:
No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
Total Walton family wealth: $144 billion.
Based on Mr. Trump's 1999 proposal, this family would pay $20.5 billion in taxes and still be left with a paltry $124 billion in wealth to put food on the table and take care of expenses around their various mansions, yachts and gilded toilets.
(And that's not counting any of their huge future incomes whatsoever from their Walmart shares at discounted capital gain income tax rates).
Mr. Trump's 1999 wealth tax is precisely what America needs.
We have socialized the rich for a very long time.
It's well past time to reverse the tide of 0.1% socialism.
Trump For President 2000....(with the added bonus of avoiding the catastrophic Boy George Bush who lowered taxes on the very rich !)
Mr. Ratner, I don't even think the very rich would even notice the money was missing.
From the Forbes 400 list for 2013, here's the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s (i.e., Walmart) descendants and their wealth rankings:
No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
Total Walton family wealth: $144 billion.
Based on Mr. Trump's 1999 proposal, this family would pay $20.5 billion in taxes and still be left with a paltry $124 billion in wealth to put food on the table and take care of expenses around their various mansions, yachts and gilded toilets.
(And that's not counting any of their huge future incomes whatsoever from their Walmart shares at discounted capital gain income tax rates).
Mr. Trump's 1999 wealth tax is precisely what America needs.
We have socialized the rich for a very long time.
It's well past time to reverse the tide of 0.1% socialism.
Trump For President 2000....(with the added bonus of avoiding the catastrophic Boy George Bush who lowered taxes on the very rich !)
243
"Make America Great Again" will only come to pass when the nation has two strong and sane national parties worthy of her. If it did not sound so vacuous or silly it could easily be the motto of the Democratic Party, which could argue that absent return to the Washington of 2009-10 we're not going to make any real progress as a nation (outside of the increasingly, relatively liberal court system). And we're not. Republicans have shown no ability to govern, only an ability to unite a once rather fractured Democratic Party. Their presidential candidates do not propose specific policies because much of what they support is very unpopular, dangerous or both. They don't offer substantive criticism of Democratic policy proposals, which they insist is part of President Obama's longtime obsession with making us heavily dependent on government, just distortions and smears. It's a party that deserves Trump as its standard-bearer, or at least the hostage taker of its Cleveland convention. And no, none of its other candidates in the race are really any better; they're just quieter and usually say fewer stupider things.
18
Steven Rattner summarizes Trumponomics skillfully, and his conclusion that Trump should get off the stage is absolutely correct. One hesitates, however, to accept the implicit assumption that the economic policies of the other Republican candidates make sense. They don't.
29
"... a lack of understanding of basic economics that is startling for a billionaire businessman."
Uhm, Mr Rattner, perhaps you'd be interested in one of these Occam's razors we have on display?
Uhm, Mr Rattner, perhaps you'd be interested in one of these Occam's razors we have on display?
4
25% tariffs would more than pay for any spending Trump is proposing, while increasing the demand for American labor, and would also create jobs and raise wages. This was the economic policy of presidents like Abraham Lincoln and his economic advisor Henry C Carey. It's the policy that built America. We need to ask ourselves if we like the world "serious economists" have brought us and if their derision is the single best sign of a good idea.
8
Yes, because America, the American economy and, indeed, the global economy clearly exist in scope and function as it did ... in the 1800s.
3
Frump took his daddy's millions- and those of Daddy's investor group and busted a bunch of businesses. He then used Daddy's money to buy his way into tv with a silly show that did generate him enough notoriety that he could sell his Daddy's name to Towers, golf courses et al.
And he has the brass to claim he is a good businessman. Awful.
When is the press going to take him down?
And he has the brass to claim he is a good businessman. Awful.
When is the press going to take him down?
18
Certainly the loss of manufacturing jobs in America since 1970 was inevitable, and Mr. Rattner identifies some of the forces that have contributed to that loss. However, there are countries such as Germany, that have made it a policy to maintain its manufacturing sector. American leaders seem to pay little attention to the devastation of the working class that has occurred due to our blind faith in the invisible hand.
In addition, the failure of American leaders to protect domestic manufacturing, has lead to national security vulnerabilities. For example, the large transformers that we require for our electricity grid are no longer made in America. No antibiotics are manufactured in this country, either. Mr. Trump wrong about a lot of things, but he is right about the protectionist Chinese playing us for fools.
In addition, the failure of American leaders to protect domestic manufacturing, has lead to national security vulnerabilities. For example, the large transformers that we require for our electricity grid are no longer made in America. No antibiotics are manufactured in this country, either. Mr. Trump wrong about a lot of things, but he is right about the protectionist Chinese playing us for fools.
240
I can understand how American leaders just gave up on workers when labor became easily transported overseas. We seem to have a philosophy that good people are rewarded so bad luck is deserved.
But the national security risks that you have so rightly pointed out flummox me. How can a country with continued drum beat on defense and security not understand that we need to have manufacturing of medications and vaccines, microchips, communications technology, electrical grid, as well as manufacturing of tools and machinery, so that we have an underlying manufacturing infrastructure in the event that the war breaks out and interferes with shipping?
The short term three month outlook mindset is in Washington as well as Wall Street.
But the national security risks that you have so rightly pointed out flummox me. How can a country with continued drum beat on defense and security not understand that we need to have manufacturing of medications and vaccines, microchips, communications technology, electrical grid, as well as manufacturing of tools and machinery, so that we have an underlying manufacturing infrastructure in the event that the war breaks out and interferes with shipping?
The short term three month outlook mindset is in Washington as well as Wall Street.
2
The thing you have to remember is that the USA is still the largest manufacturer in the world, not in terms of raw tonnage but in terms of sheer value. The textile and widget jobs aren't coming back. That's a fact. But when it comes to high-end, hi-tech, we are still the world leader.
Germany has not protected working class jobs quite as much as you may think. Reforms by the Social Democratic party let Germans companies export manufacturing jobs to Eastern Europe. To the degree to which they retain manufacturing jobs, the Germans have also been the prime beneficiaries of a single European currency and market. The German economy is one of the most competitive in a sclerotic Europe - a statement not too unlike saying that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. A stable currency and neighbors that can borrow at low interest rates has bolstered demand for German goods at the expense of industries in other developed European countries. The working class in Spain, Italy and Greece waits tables at beachside bars.
If we needed to make transformers or antibiotics in this country (or obtain them from friendly countries) we would be able to do so very quickly as we did in WWII. By contrast, Europe's failure to develop internal carbon based energy sources has already left them very vulnerable to Russian and Middle Eastern political influence.
If we needed to make transformers or antibiotics in this country (or obtain them from friendly countries) we would be able to do so very quickly as we did in WWII. By contrast, Europe's failure to develop internal carbon based energy sources has already left them very vulnerable to Russian and Middle Eastern political influence.
He is popular because many are sick of political correctness and being called racist. They like that he tells says don't worry, that he is strong, a "super genius" and will fix things, even if he can't state specifics about most anything and debates by calling names and humiliating others. That's not a president. It's a high school bully. Of course he will get along with Putin.
We've had 4 terms of inexperienced and unprepared presidents, the first elected because of family celebrity and a good ole boy personality and the second because of utopian speeches, identity politics and personal élan, neither with more international or economic experience than most people or had any greater accomplishments than selling themselves. Should we now elect a president who is not only a political neophyte, but is insecure and tempermental, speaks in absurd generalities and repeats that he is the best and knows the best negotiators.
He can be refreshingly frank, but is also often phony. When asked about his company's bankruptcies, he brags he used the laws and beat investors, who he demonizes after losing their money. That's integrity? Asked about what politicians he bought and what he got, he says Hillary Clinton came to his wedding. That's a negotiator? Asked about what he learned at the border - he spoke to some unnamed guys. Same as when asked about his birther relevations. That's honesty?
Can we not tell the difference between confidence and bravado, reality and a reality show?
We've had 4 terms of inexperienced and unprepared presidents, the first elected because of family celebrity and a good ole boy personality and the second because of utopian speeches, identity politics and personal élan, neither with more international or economic experience than most people or had any greater accomplishments than selling themselves. Should we now elect a president who is not only a political neophyte, but is insecure and tempermental, speaks in absurd generalities and repeats that he is the best and knows the best negotiators.
He can be refreshingly frank, but is also often phony. When asked about his company's bankruptcies, he brags he used the laws and beat investors, who he demonizes after losing their money. That's integrity? Asked about what politicians he bought and what he got, he says Hillary Clinton came to his wedding. That's a negotiator? Asked about what he learned at the border - he spoke to some unnamed guys. Same as when asked about his birther relevations. That's honesty?
Can we not tell the difference between confidence and bravado, reality and a reality show?
8
All Presidents are inexperienced and unready though to differing degrees. Are you complaining about continued steady job growth, reduced unemployment, millions more with health insurance or just what exactly? Or is your main problem that the current President is black. Racists no longer amuse me. Come up with something specific and get that sheet off your head.
It's not just his economic views .. His plan for ISIS ... 'bomb and steal the oil' .. he also said on CNN to Chris Cuomo that 'Iran was funding ISIS', unchallenged I would add. .. Iran is the main force fighting against ISIS. He really is the emperor with no clothes. His whole border, immigration thing is pretty insane. Really we are spending more money than ever before, throwing more people out and more people are leaving than coming in, the southern border that is. I don't think he knows much about real public policy or world affairs at all. Everything is a generalization. But what he does do is show what hypocrites most the people running are. And his New York style replies when they attack him are great. " He's going nowhere " .. " She gives me a headache "... The whole phone # thing.... Who knows, things are so wacky he could wind up the nominee. Sometimes I think we deserve it, cause the U.S. has become the stupid country.
7
"losing the services of millions of workers would significantly dent economic growth"
While millions of unskilled American workers remain unemployed?
You forgot the magic "....jobs American workers won't do" which conveniently ignores the fact that these foreigners are working for substandard wages and living in subhuman conditions which no American citizen would or should tolerate.
Get rid of these alien criminal and let the market set reasonable wages for back breaking, grunt work and Americans will magical consent to do these jobs, and if the price of grapes and tomatoes goes up a couple of percent, consider it a small price to pay compared to unemployment insurance.
While millions of unskilled American workers remain unemployed?
You forgot the magic "....jobs American workers won't do" which conveniently ignores the fact that these foreigners are working for substandard wages and living in subhuman conditions which no American citizen would or should tolerate.
Get rid of these alien criminal and let the market set reasonable wages for back breaking, grunt work and Americans will magical consent to do these jobs, and if the price of grapes and tomatoes goes up a couple of percent, consider it a small price to pay compared to unemployment insurance.
17
Donald Trump is the best candidate the republican party has put forward. He represents the fiscal ideology of the republican party and his social values are mainstream to the republican voters. His refusal to rule out an independent candidacy is a warning to RINOs everywhere.
Republican voters everywhere should be grateful they now have the opportunity to see their values and priorities displayed in full view on the national stage. So-called "moderate" republicans will either recognize themselves in Trump's rhetoric and supporters or should seriously question why they consider themselves republicans.
Every democratic and independent voter should consider Trump's candidacy an important reason why in a rational world, dominated by common sense, democrats will broaden their base when they retain the presidency next year ... unless the democratic party screws it up.
Republican voters everywhere should be grateful they now have the opportunity to see their values and priorities displayed in full view on the national stage. So-called "moderate" republicans will either recognize themselves in Trump's rhetoric and supporters or should seriously question why they consider themselves republicans.
Every democratic and independent voter should consider Trump's candidacy an important reason why in a rational world, dominated by common sense, democrats will broaden their base when they retain the presidency next year ... unless the democratic party screws it up.
12
I think he likes the Bible because he gets so many free copies of 'The Gideon Bible' to stick in his hotel rooms ! I doubt he ever read a verse but the evangelical rubes will buy his spiel just like they buy Huckabee's snake oil and Walker's faux Christianity ! "There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
And Trump claims his favorite book (the second being his own) is the Bible, as he proudly announced at a speech in Michigan.
I don't know who the real suckers are: the people that support Trump, or the media that give Trump the publicity he seeks by taking anything the man says seriously.
I don't know who the real suckers are: the people that support Trump, or the media that give Trump the publicity he seeks by taking anything the man says seriously.
23
Any candidate who promises a wide range of actions is cynically misleading the public. The best they can do is promise to try, even to try hard, because the rest is generally up to Congress. Huckabee and Trump are just two of the offenders in this, promising action as if they intend to prorogue both Congress and the SCOTUS. But they know that there is enough ignorance among the public to share among 17 or even 170 candidates.
5
I'll be happy when he's off the stage, too. Of course, writing about him, even to point out the flaws in his economic proposals for the nation, keeps him on stage.
Stay strong, Steve. DT's ad hominem attacks are sure to follow.
Stay strong, Steve. DT's ad hominem attacks are sure to follow.
4
Mr. Rattner, making sense out of Mr. Trump is not possible, nor material regarding his hard earned fame. He is a Fox News creation of amplified Authoritarian persona that speaks to the disgruntled, distopic segments of American life. Specificity of diatribe can only be (self-evident nonsense), notwithstanding the remarkable political pundent class (continously) misunderstandings, miscalculating his poll standing. His fame come from a tested, retested and validated personality. John Dean wrote eloquently about Authoritarianism and offered insightful explanations regarding the segment that need personality types like Mr. Trump. Hopefully, -- bullishly, determinedly, Mr. Trump will inspire many and become a more serious GOP thorn as American voters learn about the similarities among the array of Republican candidates.
4
I have read that if Trump had invested his father's money instead of using it for business, he would be worth about 20 billion, instead of the 4 to 5 billion he is worth today.
I don't see how someone who sees bankruptcy as a normal business transaction would be good for our country. Maybe it's just my middle class upbringing, but declaring bankruptcy is never a good economic plan. Trump sounds too much like Bain Capital to me, a company that leaves destruction and lost jobs behind almost every acquisition. Oh sure, the people on top make money, but at the expense of most of the workers. And we, the American public, would be the ones who lose.
I don't see how someone who sees bankruptcy as a normal business transaction would be good for our country. Maybe it's just my middle class upbringing, but declaring bankruptcy is never a good economic plan. Trump sounds too much like Bain Capital to me, a company that leaves destruction and lost jobs behind almost every acquisition. Oh sure, the people on top make money, but at the expense of most of the workers. And we, the American public, would be the ones who lose.
104
"...what bizarre views they are...", but does it matter? Preaching to a significant fraction of the US population which has been carefully cultivated by right wing "leaders", through hyperbolic, hateful, and ideologically motivated speech directed at this President and government in general, Trump doesn't need to demonstrate any actual competence regarding governing. He ask us to trust him and his business credentials to get the job done ... it shocks me that there are so many adults in this country with minds of puffed up, middle-school boys.
355
Bingo! Middle-school comes immediately to mind--curiously Trump resembles both a middle-school bully and a middle-school nerd. The former traits are obvious. But what about "I went to the best schools. . . . !"? That's just plain weird and bespeaks a deep-seated sense of inferiority. I think that when we're over, say, fifty, reciting our SAT scores or puffing our educational credentials are really not seemly ways to talk about ourselves. (By the way, if going to great schools is so important, how can Trump attack the President's policies and intelligence?)
5
And that is an insult to middle school boys.
1
It is not only shocking but a sad commentary on the intelligence of a large portion of the American electorate.
2
Trump like the Alchemists who manipulated gold and other precious metals accumulates money but will never understand its social character or the substance it represents.
10
I agree with Mr. Rattner that Donald Trump shows a lack of understanding of economics and some of his thinking is bizarre but I think the same thing of what I see of Mr. Rattner's ideas; he seems to embrace the "boundaries of accepted economic thought" on Wall Street that so catastrophically shook the economy in 2008 and continue to threaten us today. His "serious economists" are generally apologists for Wall Street interests and priorities rather than critical analysts. And we need analytics, not apologies.
For example, what has been the effect of shifting at least one trillion dollars in income annually from the middle class to the top of the income hierarchy? What does that do to consumption patterns, to savings capability? We have numerous studies of poverty but very few of wealth. What happens to the economy when policy shifts from long-term investment in research and infrastructure to speculation and consumption? Will Donald Trump ask such questions? I doubt it because Trump is not a bizarre outlier but the end game of contemporary American business thinking; structure the game to your advantage and never look back. Carly Fiorina is his less bombastic counterpart; no analysis of why her decisions at Hewlett-Packard went awry, just pointing a finger elsewhere. But Steven Rattner should be asking why so many economists embraced for so long an economic model that proved to be so wrong. Trump, serious economists, and Steven Rattner.....losers, total losers.
For example, what has been the effect of shifting at least one trillion dollars in income annually from the middle class to the top of the income hierarchy? What does that do to consumption patterns, to savings capability? We have numerous studies of poverty but very few of wealth. What happens to the economy when policy shifts from long-term investment in research and infrastructure to speculation and consumption? Will Donald Trump ask such questions? I doubt it because Trump is not a bizarre outlier but the end game of contemporary American business thinking; structure the game to your advantage and never look back. Carly Fiorina is his less bombastic counterpart; no analysis of why her decisions at Hewlett-Packard went awry, just pointing a finger elsewhere. But Steven Rattner should be asking why so many economists embraced for so long an economic model that proved to be so wrong. Trump, serious economists, and Steven Rattner.....losers, total losers.
60
Rattner and Georgescu have similar approaches to current economic issues. They take the status quo as basically fine and look for little fixes -- get rid of Trump, reduce social security and Medicare benefits, add a little charity for flavor. Neither accepts that they are extremely wealthy due to a somewhat skewered system and their luck (and their use of schemes to take advantage [as Trump proudly announces he has] of loopholes and the vagaries of our tax and other business laws). They both shy away from increased taxes, higher minimum wages, increased spending on social security and Medicare/Medicaid, and other socially responsible policies that could be pursued cautiously yet determinedly. They are clearly not brilliant economists. But what they are indeed are folks knowledgeable about being very rich. Why not have them discuss what they do with all their money (that part not given away in charity) and why people need (or can even reasonably use) more than say 5 million dollars of net worth? How does it enrich their lives? How does it make them happier than others? What would they have to give up if they were taxed at a higher rate?
75
Well put. Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!
Traveling back to another era of 'fuzzy math', which we learned would not compute, we need voices to enlighten an otherwise uninformed public that the US economy is not a reality show; inane ideas are just that; and a TV-based bully has no place in serious economic debate, or a Commander-in-Chief race.
Don't trust - verify!
Traveling back to another era of 'fuzzy math', which we learned would not compute, we need voices to enlighten an otherwise uninformed public that the US economy is not a reality show; inane ideas are just that; and a TV-based bully has no place in serious economic debate, or a Commander-in-Chief race.
Don't trust - verify!
2
Dear Steven Rattner,
While you are correct in pointing out the comical contradictions in Donald Trump's econo-speak persiflage, you too raised some important questions which you failed to address when you wrote as follows:
"Moreover, many of those manufacturing jobs weren’t lost to other countries but to growing efficiency, just as employment in agriculture in the United States has fallen even as output has risen.
No policies could reverse tectonic forces of this magnitude, and in suggesting that there are remedies, Mr. Trump is cynically misleading the American public."
Steven, if efficiencies rather than offshoirng of jobs are the cause of millions of evaporating American jobs since 2000 as you wrote, then what do we do, become less efficient, or just docily accept that these millions of jobs are gone because as you wrote "no policies could reverse tectonic forces of this magnitude."?
According to you, Trump is wrong but there is no policy that exists that is any better than Trump's wrong policy.
How could you just leave all that hanging?!
While you are correct in pointing out the comical contradictions in Donald Trump's econo-speak persiflage, you too raised some important questions which you failed to address when you wrote as follows:
"Moreover, many of those manufacturing jobs weren’t lost to other countries but to growing efficiency, just as employment in agriculture in the United States has fallen even as output has risen.
No policies could reverse tectonic forces of this magnitude, and in suggesting that there are remedies, Mr. Trump is cynically misleading the American public."
Steven, if efficiencies rather than offshoirng of jobs are the cause of millions of evaporating American jobs since 2000 as you wrote, then what do we do, become less efficient, or just docily accept that these millions of jobs are gone because as you wrote "no policies could reverse tectonic forces of this magnitude."?
According to you, Trump is wrong but there is no policy that exists that is any better than Trump's wrong policy.
How could you just leave all that hanging?!
29
“outside the boundaries of accepted economic thought”
What an Orwellian phrase. Yet, this is exactly the appeal of Donald Trump, that he has no boundaries.
Voters are tired of politicians who are too afraid, bought, or weak to upset the corrupt establishment.
Trump is obviously an idiot in many respects, but he is also unafraid to tell the truth as he sees it.
This is sufficient for the GOP base, who mistake wealth, even inherited wealth, as a sufficient substitute for intelligence and character.
The left has its own candidate who speaks his truth and is willing to think outside the Orwellian boundaries of establishment thought – Bernie Sanders.
He deserves far more media attention than Donald Trump, but unfortunately he is a respectable, intelligent man and not as entertaining a spectacle as Mr. Trump.
While a Trump presidency would be a disaster for America, I still find myself rooting for both of these men.
Sanders because his policies and leadership would be great for most Americans, and Trump because he clearly upsets the establishment, which has become far too complacent in its everyday greed, incompetence, and corruption.
What an Orwellian phrase. Yet, this is exactly the appeal of Donald Trump, that he has no boundaries.
Voters are tired of politicians who are too afraid, bought, or weak to upset the corrupt establishment.
Trump is obviously an idiot in many respects, but he is also unafraid to tell the truth as he sees it.
This is sufficient for the GOP base, who mistake wealth, even inherited wealth, as a sufficient substitute for intelligence and character.
The left has its own candidate who speaks his truth and is willing to think outside the Orwellian boundaries of establishment thought – Bernie Sanders.
He deserves far more media attention than Donald Trump, but unfortunately he is a respectable, intelligent man and not as entertaining a spectacle as Mr. Trump.
While a Trump presidency would be a disaster for America, I still find myself rooting for both of these men.
Sanders because his policies and leadership would be great for most Americans, and Trump because he clearly upsets the establishment, which has become far too complacent in its everyday greed, incompetence, and corruption.
37
Let me start with Trump is not smart enough or stable enough to be president. But when people like Steven Rattner say:
"Take, for example, what seems to be his “No. 1” issue: trade. Mr. Trump believes the Chinese (and others) have been playing us for fools; using cheap labor, currency manipulation and trade barriers to favor their exports and limit our imports."
That kind of state enhances Trumps chances. Middle and Working Class Americans have suffer economically because of the elite who made fortunes off of cheap Chinese labor. I guess Steven doesn't have any contact with Working Class people who lost the manufacturing jobs to China and he believes in the elite's mantra that Global trade is good for us. Only us doesn't include the working class.
"Take, for example, what seems to be his “No. 1” issue: trade. Mr. Trump believes the Chinese (and others) have been playing us for fools; using cheap labor, currency manipulation and trade barriers to favor their exports and limit our imports."
That kind of state enhances Trumps chances. Middle and Working Class Americans have suffer economically because of the elite who made fortunes off of cheap Chinese labor. I guess Steven doesn't have any contact with Working Class people who lost the manufacturing jobs to China and he believes in the elite's mantra that Global trade is good for us. Only us doesn't include the working class.
92
Comment of the day!
Trump's stage presence at center ring in the Republican circus is a direct result of low-information, poorly educated people, harboring grievances and pent up anger. But how do these people get to even follow Trump's idiocy? FOX and the right-wing media pump trash and nonstop lies into the airwaves and into the homes of America.
Sadly, America is on a path downward, on a goal set by FOX to the lowest common denominator of decision making--gut reaction without information. Exactly what we got with GWB's bravado in the White House. Trump is GWB in spades, he is no anomaly in the Republican tent, he is simply the clown with the loudest mouth. But he is not the problem, he is just the reflection of it.
We can decry the collapse of the Republican Party into a tent of fools that jeopardizes all of our futures, but what we really need to do is address the our self poisoning by the insidious FOX and right-wing outlets. They have a constitutional right of free speech to lie and spread hatred; we have a constitutional responsibility to call them out, to educate the country and to defeat Republicans in every election until they come out of their circus tent.
Sadly, America is on a path downward, on a goal set by FOX to the lowest common denominator of decision making--gut reaction without information. Exactly what we got with GWB's bravado in the White House. Trump is GWB in spades, he is no anomaly in the Republican tent, he is simply the clown with the loudest mouth. But he is not the problem, he is just the reflection of it.
We can decry the collapse of the Republican Party into a tent of fools that jeopardizes all of our futures, but what we really need to do is address the our self poisoning by the insidious FOX and right-wing outlets. They have a constitutional right of free speech to lie and spread hatred; we have a constitutional responsibility to call them out, to educate the country and to defeat Republicans in every election until they come out of their circus tent.
132
Best comment here--thank you!
1
The path downward has been championed by Mr. Rattner and his Wall Street cronies all the way to their private offshore banks.
1
Trump knows how to create jobs and I would choose him over Jeb or Hillary. I may take him seriously if he starts adding some sweeteners such as member for a day tee times on caddy days.
3
"..Mr. Trump proposed a one-time, 14.25 percent wealth tax on the very rich. Fortunately, the idea never gained traction; a $5.7 trillion tax increase would have plunged the economy into recession, if not depression..."
Why? Aren't the very rich very rich enough to keep on investing and spending? Why should anyone, never mind the super rich, ever have to face any tax increase on their earnings if the result will eventually be recession?
Oh, wait Mr. Rattner is a Wall Street executive. Never mind.
Why? Aren't the very rich very rich enough to keep on investing and spending? Why should anyone, never mind the super rich, ever have to face any tax increase on their earnings if the result will eventually be recession?
Oh, wait Mr. Rattner is a Wall Street executive. Never mind.
230
Trump is not communicating specific policies and proposals, because these policies and proposals contradict each other and are unworkable. What he is communicating is that he knows how to make money, how to use the bankruptcy code to his advantage, and in general how to navigate within our corrupt system. He has the sense and decisiveness to make good deals, and if elected he will make deals that are good for the country and not bother about political correctness and careful image construction.
He would try to run the country the way he runs his business empire. We know nothing about that, since it does not interest our media, although it should. How does he treat his employees? What do the unions he has to deal with think of him? Does he surround himself with competent managers? Are his buildings plagued with cost overruns, like our weapons contracts? Are they well designed? Do the roofs leak?
Each of these things must be known by somebody, and they would tell something about his capacity and his values. His bloviations show only a tremendous aptitude for image projection, to the extent that nobody else knows what to do about him. If he can also deliver nice places to work and live, that makes him truly frightening.
He would try to run the country the way he runs his business empire. We know nothing about that, since it does not interest our media, although it should. How does he treat his employees? What do the unions he has to deal with think of him? Does he surround himself with competent managers? Are his buildings plagued with cost overruns, like our weapons contracts? Are they well designed? Do the roofs leak?
Each of these things must be known by somebody, and they would tell something about his capacity and his values. His bloviations show only a tremendous aptitude for image projection, to the extent that nobody else knows what to do about him. If he can also deliver nice places to work and live, that makes him truly frightening.
7
>
"The Chinese are certainly protectionists, but a shift in manufacturing jobs was inevitable."
Where is the rigorous proof for this? Are you a determinists? That is what the word inevitable points to? How many jobs did Germany lose compared to us? Don't forget to standardize you numbers?
Comparative advantage is just another fancy word for cheap labor.
Comparative advantage is an economic construct, just like social constructs, created for certain people's benefit. It is not a natural law out there that we discovered, i.e., we did not find it, we created it. We are not wedded to it unless we choose to be.
This country worked fine under the Tariff system for ~ 175 yrs, until some GOPers with the help of Dems decided to get rid of it for their own enrichment.
Or maybe your a closet Marxist?
“At the present time, the system of protection is conservative, whereas the system of free trade is destructive: it dissolves old nationalities and pushes extreme antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat. In a word, the system of commercial freedom hastens the social revolution.”
Marx
"The Chinese are certainly protectionists, but a shift in manufacturing jobs was inevitable."
Where is the rigorous proof for this? Are you a determinists? That is what the word inevitable points to? How many jobs did Germany lose compared to us? Don't forget to standardize you numbers?
Comparative advantage is just another fancy word for cheap labor.
Comparative advantage is an economic construct, just like social constructs, created for certain people's benefit. It is not a natural law out there that we discovered, i.e., we did not find it, we created it. We are not wedded to it unless we choose to be.
This country worked fine under the Tariff system for ~ 175 yrs, until some GOPers with the help of Dems decided to get rid of it for their own enrichment.
Or maybe your a closet Marxist?
“At the present time, the system of protection is conservative, whereas the system of free trade is destructive: it dissolves old nationalities and pushes extreme antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat. In a word, the system of commercial freedom hastens the social revolution.”
Marx
40
What I dont understand about all the folks out there under "Trumps Thrall" is why no one asks him this simple question "Mr Trump you are a native New Yorker and have professed your love for your home so many times how come you are not the Mayor of New York City or Governor of New York State? Are they not larger enough for you? Could it be possible you would not win an election there?". If you live in New York you know the answer. If you dont live in New York you starting to get the answer. Then again when you listen to his GOP opponents maybe he is not that off the Wall?
6
I felt similarly when Jesse Jackson wanted to run for president, but turned down what would have been a sure thing and could have proven his governing abilities, being the mayor of Washington, D.C.
I feel like I'm in some paralell universe when a very bright man like Steve Rattner analyses the economic anomalies of the "Donald". I'm waiting for Tom Freidman's dissection of Justin Bieber's foreign policy world view.
29
It doesn't matter what Trump says, it's how he says it that is resonating. He projects anger and blustery certitude – an id with no super-ego, spittle-spoken without a politician's caution. He's technicolor and his competition is black and white.
The electorate is furious for all sorts of good reasons and thus have summoned a bouffant-haired, lizard-brained, Fury to express their rage. It's refreshing, it feels good, and they will not be dissuaded by the mere content of his word storms. And so it goes with the low information voter. Trump will inflate until he collapses as a result of being who he is: a thin-skinned bully know nothing. In the meantime, enjoy the show. He certainly is as proven by his comments to Fox anchors about the huge ratings he's getting them, conflating a presidential election (where the object is to win) with a reality TV show (where the object is high audience numbers).
The electorate is furious for all sorts of good reasons and thus have summoned a bouffant-haired, lizard-brained, Fury to express their rage. It's refreshing, it feels good, and they will not be dissuaded by the mere content of his word storms. And so it goes with the low information voter. Trump will inflate until he collapses as a result of being who he is: a thin-skinned bully know nothing. In the meantime, enjoy the show. He certainly is as proven by his comments to Fox anchors about the huge ratings he's getting them, conflating a presidential election (where the object is to win) with a reality TV show (where the object is high audience numbers).
159
I'm a bit baffled that Steven Rattner thinks it's "startling" that a billionaire businessman should be confused about how the economy works.
Trump's mixed success as a real estate wheeler-dealer--starting, of course, with a huge inheritance from his family--has nothing to do with an understanding of economics.
You might as well be surprised to learn that a talented baseball pitcher is not an expert on the formulas from physics that explain why a curve ball dances on its way to the plate.
Trump's mixed success as a real estate wheeler-dealer--starting, of course, with a huge inheritance from his family--has nothing to do with an understanding of economics.
You might as well be surprised to learn that a talented baseball pitcher is not an expert on the formulas from physics that explain why a curve ball dances on its way to the plate.
473
That's a good point, however the pitcher knows how to make that ball curve.
2
Karl:
Are you saying that Ted Cruz was once a talented pitcher?
Are you saying that Ted Cruz was once a talented pitcher?
"You might as well be surprised to learn that a talented baseball pitcher is not an expert on the formulas from physics that explain why a curve ball dances on its way to the plate."
Exactly.
Some people can do things without really understanding how.
Trump is an instinctive master manipulator. As you methodically point out, nothing about his "economic policies" have any sort of logical or scientific underpinning. He is completely dependent upon people making a leap of faith that "he'll take care of it", based upon nothing more than his cartoonish bravado.
He keeps insisting that he's "smart", but the things that are making him a force in this presidential cycle have nothing to do with what he learned at Wharton or any other school.
In Golf, an instinctive player is a "grip it and rip it" person. They can't or don't know how to analyze the bio-mechanics of their swing, they can just "do it", without really understanding how.
Exactly.
Some people can do things without really understanding how.
Trump is an instinctive master manipulator. As you methodically point out, nothing about his "economic policies" have any sort of logical or scientific underpinning. He is completely dependent upon people making a leap of faith that "he'll take care of it", based upon nothing more than his cartoonish bravado.
He keeps insisting that he's "smart", but the things that are making him a force in this presidential cycle have nothing to do with what he learned at Wharton or any other school.
In Golf, an instinctive player is a "grip it and rip it" person. They can't or don't know how to analyze the bio-mechanics of their swing, they can just "do it", without really understanding how.
1
Trump is a boorish clod, but one that understands his own best interests. If he gets elected, and I believer he might be because the American people are extremely tired of what we have now, he'll pick somebody like Michael Bloomberg to be his Vice President and leave all the heavy lifting to him, while he himself does what he does best, which is fulminate.
Americans will be happy and entertained, and the economy might even get better.
Americans will be happy and entertained, and the economy might even get better.
11
Pundits have more contempt to the Trump than republican establishment, the Trump had shattered all their models and theories about election process and predicting the voters sentiment, again and again he prove them wrong. Fortunately voters are the one who get to choose and when the pundits try to frame the voters mind that when we get columns like these. They all like known politician even the corrupt ones because they are predictable, but when they get one they can predicte they will attack him. Mr Ratner is using the logic to define the Trump, remember that republucan primaries in 2008 & 2012 are not about logic or what good for the country it's just a circus. So let the show go on, especially now we get the real showman.
3
In other words. open up the borders, remove all trade restrictions, let corporations expand wherever they want without any loyalty to America, which is exactly why Trump is leading in all the polls.
15
Sorry, but Trump is leading in the polls because there are always some people who hear a few rousing proclamations from a demagogue and react with, "Yeah! Yeah! What he said!" If the rousing statements are seriously questioned--as in, "What exactly do you mean by that?" or, "How do you propose to accomplish that stirring objective?"--the proclamations ring hollow, the glow fades, and the momentary popular enthusiasm is lost.
Not everyone will acknowledge that this Emperor, too, is a loud-mouthed fool, but the poll numbers can't possibly remain high once the sloganeering wears thin and the contradictions are made manifest.
Not everyone will acknowledge that this Emperor, too, is a loud-mouthed fool, but the poll numbers can't possibly remain high once the sloganeering wears thin and the contradictions are made manifest.
4
MR. RATTNER, FORGET TRUMP'S ECONOMIC MUDDLES . . .
...just imagine his diplomatic ventures. His potential presidency would bring the world a few seconds from the apocalypse.
Dr. Donald Strangelove!
...just imagine his diplomatic ventures. His potential presidency would bring the world a few seconds from the apocalypse.
Dr. Donald Strangelove!
8
Steve, you forget that Mencken was, indeed, right. No one ever has gone broke underestimating ....
4
One must admit it takes extraordinary skills to bankrupt a casino, since the house always wins. The mob run ones were vastly profitable.
Trump is merely another privileged rich boy, a Viet Nam draft dodging coward, like the vast majority of republicans from that era, talking tough, with lives of other people's children, a very republican thing.
That mountain of debt Rattner mentions was incurred by republicans, by Reagan, Bush I and Bush the War Criminal, by a combined 28 debt ceiling increases, on average, ever 8.6 months over their twenty years in office.
They spent like drunken sailors on near perpetual war and tax giveaways to the 1%.
Trump is merely another privileged rich boy, a Viet Nam draft dodging coward, like the vast majority of republicans from that era, talking tough, with lives of other people's children, a very republican thing.
That mountain of debt Rattner mentions was incurred by republicans, by Reagan, Bush I and Bush the War Criminal, by a combined 28 debt ceiling increases, on average, ever 8.6 months over their twenty years in office.
They spent like drunken sailors on near perpetual war and tax giveaways to the 1%.
416
Craig makes the excellent point that if we just regulated our financial institutions as well as the Nevada Gaming Commission watches over casinos, we wouldn't have problems like in 2007-08; after all, no one's had to recapitalize a casino in quite a long time, and certainly the public hasn't had to pony up to bail out the guys running black-jack and roulette.
Wonder if the Nevada Gaming Commission has any problems with regulatory capture ?
Wonder if the Nevada Gaming Commission has any problems with regulatory capture ?
9
Trump's a bloviating air-head, all hair and no gravitas.
8
True.
But he is also right more often than a stopped clock, less often than Krugman. That puts him leagues ahead of the other Republicans, and Hillary too. Hair bloviation and all.
But he is also right more often than a stopped clock, less often than Krugman. That puts him leagues ahead of the other Republicans, and Hillary too. Hair bloviation and all.
3
Yes Trump is outside the boundaries of commonly accepted politicians, but that’s what he builds on. Will voters be repelled or attracted?
The rich who inherit their money don’t have to understand basic economics at all. They just hire experts, and watch CNBC! They have enough cushion to ride out their failures.
Mr. Rattner says many mfg jobs weren’t lost to other countries, but to growing efficiency? But then why are workers in other efficient and advanced nations, like Germany, etc, not suffering the our fate to such a degree as millions of Americans whose livelihoods were robbed, with little to replace it? Maybe less extreme offshoring, plus retraining and safety nets? Please discuss in your next column.
DT praises single payer h/c? Let him explain why—should be enlightening. This topic is avoided in our media, so if they want controversy, there it is.
But just for kicks, some ask, is Trump really a conservative, whatever that means?
Bush strategist Peter Wehner’s NYT July 8 op ed says that Trump isn’t a real Republican. Trump was a registered Dem, donated to Dems, including Hillary. He was pro choice, pro single payer h/c, and higher wealth taxes, and pro legalized drugs. Was a vehement protectionist, and criticized Repubs for attacking SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Will this be mentioned in the debates?
Some say Sanders isn’t a real Democrat. He’s a socialist! But oddly enough, his proposals are all quite centrist. Each party want to get rid of its outliers.
The rich who inherit their money don’t have to understand basic economics at all. They just hire experts, and watch CNBC! They have enough cushion to ride out their failures.
Mr. Rattner says many mfg jobs weren’t lost to other countries, but to growing efficiency? But then why are workers in other efficient and advanced nations, like Germany, etc, not suffering the our fate to such a degree as millions of Americans whose livelihoods were robbed, with little to replace it? Maybe less extreme offshoring, plus retraining and safety nets? Please discuss in your next column.
DT praises single payer h/c? Let him explain why—should be enlightening. This topic is avoided in our media, so if they want controversy, there it is.
But just for kicks, some ask, is Trump really a conservative, whatever that means?
Bush strategist Peter Wehner’s NYT July 8 op ed says that Trump isn’t a real Republican. Trump was a registered Dem, donated to Dems, including Hillary. He was pro choice, pro single payer h/c, and higher wealth taxes, and pro legalized drugs. Was a vehement protectionist, and criticized Repubs for attacking SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Will this be mentioned in the debates?
Some say Sanders isn’t a real Democrat. He’s a socialist! But oddly enough, his proposals are all quite centrist. Each party want to get rid of its outliers.
36
Pitiful attempt to takedown the Trumpmeister.
But Mr Rattner you say a one-time 14.25 tax on the very rich would have "plunged the economy into recession, even depression".
Is that to be read with a straight face? 14.25% wouldn't dent a billionaire as a one-time Patriotic act, let alone cause a recession. Maybe a bummer in certain circles but lol.
But Mr Rattner you say a one-time 14.25 tax on the very rich would have "plunged the economy into recession, even depression".
Is that to be read with a straight face? 14.25% wouldn't dent a billionaire as a one-time Patriotic act, let alone cause a recession. Maybe a bummer in certain circles but lol.
252
I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me why a wealth tax on the very rich would plunge the economy into recession, if not depression? Seriously, I want to know. It's a statement by Mr. Rattner that deserves an explanation.
Would it be different if the very rich voluntarily contributed that money?
Would it be different if the very rich voluntarily contributed that money?
401
the very wealthy aren't all that liquid- if they sold real estate and cashed in stocks, bonds and sold of companies all at once, prices would plummet- who are the buyers when everyone else is selling? Trump is wealthy in real estate holdings and probably lacks 14% in easily accessed cash. Who would? Wealthy people invest excess cash.
2
Because he is a Wall Street mogul and he doesn't want to pay hi fair share of taxes for the societal benefits he gets. Ever since they dropped taxes on the rich all that has happened is they they have gotten richer and education, wages, and infrastructure have gotten worse. But people are blind and it is easier to blame regular folks rather than the rich saviors who will someday take that tax money and give us great jobs, someday, sometime, in the near/far future, when they have enough for their future generations going on into the year 4000 have enough to live in splendor I guess.
13
I agree, that statement by Mr Rattner seems odd. If a tax is applied to a very small minority of the population, wouldn't the spending of the rest of the population continue as usual? I think Mr Rattner's arguments are colored somewhat by his own interests, and those of his friends and colleagues (i.e., the very rich).
Missing from Mr Rattner's analysis also, is the contribution of so called "private equity". Deliberately destroying jobs in the US to replace them with cheaper labor over seas may be profitable for the very rich who control those business decisions, but its a disaster for those who lose their employment.
I'm not convinced Trump is as off base as Mr Rattner presents.
Missing from Mr Rattner's analysis also, is the contribution of so called "private equity". Deliberately destroying jobs in the US to replace them with cheaper labor over seas may be profitable for the very rich who control those business decisions, but its a disaster for those who lose their employment.
I'm not convinced Trump is as off base as Mr Rattner presents.
8
Versus Merv Griffin, Trump got the very short end of the stick in the Resorts International deal in Atlantic City.
How's Trump going to fare against the Chinese, the Germans, the Russians, and the Japanese? He couldn't figure out the "Wheel of Fortune" man, a very bright man, but hardly inscrutable.
Merv Griffin also served as a pallbearer for Ronald Reagan. Alas, what Dutch has wrought, a postindustrial age in which hoi polloi put their faith in a misogynistic, xenophobic, bloviator that Frank Capra could not have imagined in his wildest dreams. We live in Pottersville now, and that's why Trump has some traction.
How's Trump going to fare against the Chinese, the Germans, the Russians, and the Japanese? He couldn't figure out the "Wheel of Fortune" man, a very bright man, but hardly inscrutable.
Merv Griffin also served as a pallbearer for Ronald Reagan. Alas, what Dutch has wrought, a postindustrial age in which hoi polloi put their faith in a misogynistic, xenophobic, bloviator that Frank Capra could not have imagined in his wildest dreams. We live in Pottersville now, and that's why Trump has some traction.
59
I think the rule with the republican base is simple 'don't look behind the curtain'. In 2000 the joke was Bush and Cheney were the Wizard of Oz candidates, Bush needed a brain and Cheney needed a heart. Well in 2015/6, Trump appears to be the great and powerful Oz as long as no one looks behind the curtain.
28
I don't think Trump cynically misleads anyone. I think he practices upon others the same deceptions he practices upon himself. He is so deeply wedded to his own delusional thinking that it's very unlikely he can see anything through any lens other than a massive self-interest one. He is sincere in his selfishness ans self-interest, and not too concerned about others' negative thoughts towards him. This makes him seem honest and courageous, and funny, too, to people who are not thinking with their minds.
297
The fact that Trump is delusional makes him the perfect republican, despite what George Will said recently. Delusion is the party platform and Trump is sticking with the platform.
7
Great comment Heather - you are spot on. Trump's voice and modus operandi are reminiscent of dictators that have dotted human history. Megalomaniacal, bullying, thuggish, childish.
2
"The greatest Wizard of Oz has spoken, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
8
When contemplating today's CEO class, and one of the approximately 1500 $Billionaire$ on our little globe, we've found it important to keep in mind the article from Paul Krugman in 2002 regarded our New Gilded Age:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20INEQUALITY.html
as well as Robert Hare's research showing that psychopaths are 400% more prevalent in C-suites than in random passers-by on the street corner:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/the-stack-the-psychopath-test-by-jo...
If you remain cognizant that in our post-Citizens United/McCutcheon decision dystopia, that the purchasing of the political and regulatory levers that protect the rest of humanity from ' animal spirits ' and the psychopaths proven to inhabit the C-suites is condoned/encouraged, the recipe for disaster is crystal clear.
Leavened with the fact that corporate boards of directors that are supposed to help restrain CEO behavior are nothing more than 500 separate union locals for CEOs, packed with buddy CEOs of the respective chairmen, it is a true testimony to the strength of market economies that the whole rickety structure doesn't collapse under its own weight more often.
One does wonder what are the weight limits on such a precarious structure - is El Donaldo one multiple-bankruptcy clueless CEO from Richistan bubbledom too many, and why should he get the driver's seat as his entry level position ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20INEQUALITY.html
as well as Robert Hare's research showing that psychopaths are 400% more prevalent in C-suites than in random passers-by on the street corner:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/the-stack-the-psychopath-test-by-jo...
If you remain cognizant that in our post-Citizens United/McCutcheon decision dystopia, that the purchasing of the political and regulatory levers that protect the rest of humanity from ' animal spirits ' and the psychopaths proven to inhabit the C-suites is condoned/encouraged, the recipe for disaster is crystal clear.
Leavened with the fact that corporate boards of directors that are supposed to help restrain CEO behavior are nothing more than 500 separate union locals for CEOs, packed with buddy CEOs of the respective chairmen, it is a true testimony to the strength of market economies that the whole rickety structure doesn't collapse under its own weight more often.
One does wonder what are the weight limits on such a precarious structure - is El Donaldo one multiple-bankruptcy clueless CEO from Richistan bubbledom too many, and why should he get the driver's seat as his entry level position ?
75
"the boundaries of accepted economic thought"
Steven Rattner is no expert on that. He tends to be far outside accepted economic thought, right wing, corporate excuses.
And sure enough, his critique here is excuses. He declares that our problems are inevitable, that nothing could or should be done about them.
Now Trump may be a showman treating the Presidential race as would P.T. Barnum, but he's getting support from people do KNOW there is something wrong, people who reject the excuses still offered by guys like Steven Rattner.
Want someone more responsible than Trump? Have someone give answers more responsible than Rattner's, and Trump's too.
Steven Rattner is no expert on that. He tends to be far outside accepted economic thought, right wing, corporate excuses.
And sure enough, his critique here is excuses. He declares that our problems are inevitable, that nothing could or should be done about them.
Now Trump may be a showman treating the Presidential race as would P.T. Barnum, but he's getting support from people do KNOW there is something wrong, people who reject the excuses still offered by guys like Steven Rattner.
Want someone more responsible than Trump? Have someone give answers more responsible than Rattner's, and Trump's too.
166
To analyze Trump's muddled brain
Is an exercise filled with disdain,
Beneath that feral hair
Lies a Tea Party's lair,
To seek any logic is vain!
Is an exercise filled with disdain,
Beneath that feral hair
Lies a Tea Party's lair,
To seek any logic is vain!
40
Larry.....‘feral hair’....very funny. Speaking of his hair, did you see the 2 photos side by side on krugman’s blog the other day of Trump and a long haired cat, in profile, both with similar hair styles?
4