Trump smarter than mainstream economists? Maybe.

Donald Trump may have, as he claims, “a very good brain,” but way too many of his comments originate in his gut.

He is all over the place, a former Democrat, now a Republican, but at odds with the Republican Party.  He is so unfocused he needs a Vice Presidential candidate to “explain what Trump really meant.”

That said, like the proverbial stopped clock, which is right twice a day, he may have some good ideas that mainstream economists would be well to examine.

Chicago Tribune:  Trump’s economic proposals were split between traditional GOP policies, like rolling back taxes and easing federal regulations, scrapping trade pacts and pouring new money into railways, highways and other infrastructure.

Trump’s plans left many economicst skeptical, as did the absence of detail on how he would pay for his proposals.

Rolling back federal taxes is a good idea if it is done from the bottom up, to narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to work that way, as his previous proposals aided the rich more than the non-rich.

Easing federal regulations is a terrible idea that caused the Great Recession of 2008. It allows the money barons to set the rules — the sharks in charge of the bathing beach.

Scrapping trade plans is a bad idea — and overly simple solution, made to appeal to simpletons. We can’t leave American trade rules in the hands of the big corporations, but trade plans are needed. They should be designed to ease trade while benefitting the lower income groups.

Deficit spending on infrastructure is more than a great idea; it is an absolute necessity. Those arguing against this spending are arguing for the rusting and destruction of America.

But the key problem comes with the phrase, “how he would pay for his proposals.” It is a version of the “Big Lie” (the lie that federal taxes are needed to fund federal spending.)

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can pay for anything, and do it without collecting taxes. That is what being Monetarily Sovereign means.

All decent economists are well aware that asking how the federal government would pay for spending, is almost like asking how the Pacific Ocean will supply salt water (except that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government has a greater ability to supply dollars than the Ocean’s ability to supply salt water).

Trump also promised a major buldup of the military at an unspecified price, and he has vowed to resist pressure by fellow Republicans to curb Social Security and Medicare, a pledge he did not mention Monday.

Building the military not only protects our interests but stimulates the economy. Complaining about terrorists, while cutting defense  spending, is like complaining about mosquitos while cutting holes in the screens.

The right-wing desire to “curb” Social Security and Medicare is a disgrace. It would impoverish millions of Americans for no reason at all. Neither Social Security nor Medicare could run short of dollars, unless Congress and the President wished it.

“It can’t add up is the bottom line,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and nonpartisan think tank.

Translation: “Nonpartisan” always means: Being neither Republican nor Democrat, but doing exactly what the rich want done, and saying exactly what the rich want said. 

And “add up” means: “We hope you’ll believe the Big Lie that federal spending is funded by federal taxing. In that way, we can give you phony excuses to prevent the government from helping close the Gap between you and the uber-rich.”

He initially proposed simplifying individual income tax rates with three brackets — 25 percent, 20 percent and 10 percent.  Trump increased those Monday to align with House Republican plan that calls for rates of 33 percent, 25 percent and 12 percent.

Prior to those changes, a Moody’s Analytics report concluded that Trump’s economic agenda would thrust Americans into a lengthy recesslion, create “very large deficits” and burden the country with “a much higher debt load.”

Trump is far more liberal than the Republican leaders, who want the 99% less wealthy / less powerful Americans to pay as much tax as possible.

The 33% tax rate on the rich is fake; no rich person pays the highest rate. That’s what tax shelters, tax havens, and tax dodges are for.

The biggest tax shelter for the “not-rich” is the 401K plan, which is taxed at the highest form of income rate, as soon as money is taken out. (Even if your 401K investments have long-term capital gains, which normally are taxed at a low rate [for the rich] you will be taxed at the higher rate when you take the money.)

And then we come to Moody’s, one of the three credit rating agencies that rated worthless securities AAA, which helped cause the Great Recession of 2008. Thank you Moody’s. Why anyone believes anything they say, is a mystery.

“Very large deficits” are the method by which the federal government grows the economy. “A much higher debt load” means much higher investments in T-security accounts at the world’s safest bank.

Neither federal deficits nor federal debt are a burden on the government, on taxpayers or on anyone else. The government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency.

In summary, Moody’s comments are as diametrically wrong as it is humanly possible;  Trump, as wrong as he is, is much closer to being correct.

Bottom line: Trump has no coherent economic plan, and what little plans he offers are riddled with inconsistencies and false assumptions.

Nevertheless, Trump’s inconsistent and false plans are closer to reality than the gigantic, humongous lies of the Republican Party, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and Moody’s.

When you’re farther from reality than Donald Trump, wow, that is saying something.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.


6 thoughts on “Trump smarter than mainstream economists? Maybe.

    1. Read the article, again. Lots and lots of outraged innuendo, but no real evidence of anything.

      The key sentence may be: “Hillary Clinton was connected to Lafarge when the firm was involved in facilitating CIA support for Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme.”

      Think about all the implications of that sentence. She was “connected” with a company that was doing work for America’s CIA (this is bad??)

      And the CIA supported “Hussein’s secret weapons program” (Is this like his mythical weapons of mass destruction?)

      The entire article reads like something out of The Enquirer, lots of hints but no facts.

      Finally, this is what the website says about itself: “There’s an ongoing global effort to level the geopolitical playing field between the East and West by establishing a parallel financial system based on sovereign assets, and by neutralizing a specific crime syndicate behind all wars of aggression worldwide.”

      What the heck does that mean? Kindly translate it for me.

      Sounds like a Trump scare-mongering speech.


    1. Some politicians appear to be honest. None actually are.

      All politicians believe the public is relatively ignorant, and cannot be trusted with the truth. In that, they are correct.

      So, you will not hear the truth from Trump, Clinton or Johnson. They all lie.

      For example, they all subscribe to The Big Lie (Federal taxes fund federal spending.) They believe that you, the public, will punish them for telling the truth, and they probably are correct.

      As a voter, the best you can do is determine your own leanings, and select the one most in line with those leanings.

      Personally, I cannot subscribe to the basis of libertarianism (less government regulation, which allows the rich and powerful to rule the weak). So that eliminates Johnson.

      For similar reasons, I cannot subscribe to the right wing belief that the rich and powerful should rule the weak). So that eliminates the Republican candidate.

      By the process of elimination, I am left with the candidate that comes closest to my own beliefs (narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest), even though she still is too right wing for my tastes.

      While listing Trump’s and Clinton’s lies is entertaining, in the National Enquirer vein, it is not a good basis for voting.



  1. Hillary has the unanimous support of bankers, of neocons, of Wall Street, and the One Percent. She will deliver everything they demand, including mass privatization, the TPP, endless war (perhaps a world war with Russia) and a wider-than-ever gap between the rich and the rest.

    For average people, life under Hillary will be a nightmare. And the more it becomes a nightmare, the more they will comfort themselves with the delusion that “Trump would have been worse.” This despite the fact that Trump is opposed by all those who will create the nightmare.

    Among common folk, non-stop Trump-bashing is a desperate attempt to deny what they know inside about Hillary and her rich backers. It is a desperate attempt to deny the reality that in many ways, Trump is the de facto Democrat, and Hillary is the de facto Republican. Such people camouflage the economic realities of Hillary by focusing on the social inanities of Trump, such as his proposed border wall, which Congress would never agree to. They focus on Trump’s verbal gaffs about Muslims, while they ignore Hillary’s track record of exterminating Muslims. (Hillary cheered for the destruction of Libya, and has publicly vowed to nuke Iran.)

    As President, Trump would not be able to get the US Congress to agree to anything he wants. However Trump would be able to veto the US Congress, and thereby trip up things like the TPP, and war with Russia.

    What we need is an ineffective Trump, not an effective neocon-neoliberal Hillary.


  2. True, Trump is not a Republican, but he would appoint more Scalias to the Supreme Court, which would be a disaster for America — unless you like unlimited political contributions, unlimited guns, the reduction in minority voting rights, a theocracy, and jurists who accept free “hunting trips” from the wealthy.

    And, Trump’s crazed hand above the button — he wants to nuke ISIS — gives one pause. (Please give me your references for Hillary’s desire to nuke Iran and for her cheering the destruction of Lybia. I’ve not seen those)

    And to describe Trumps vow to exclude Muslims as merely a “verbal gaff” is unbecoming to you, Elizabeth. Is deporting 11 million undocumented Mexicans also just a “gaff”?

    By the way, when was the last time any Congress voted for war, and the President vetoed it? Doesn’t it always go the other way?

    Unfortunately, Hillary is a continuation of Barack’s policies, which as poor as they may be, still exceeded Bush II and today’s Congress, by a long way,

    Sorry, but you can’t shine up a broken Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for a male version of Sarah Palin with a tinge of Hannity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s