14% of Economist Say Trump Would Be The Best For The Economy

[Al Azar]

So 86% of economists are globalists

do you think a global economy might have something to do with that?
not the dumbest thing I've read today but it's early yet.

Obviously. Globalism is the status quo. Hillary is the status quo candidate. Rhetoric that rails against the status quo (ie Trump and Sanders) isn't going to garner favor with a majority of economists (who don't actually produce goods and tend to benefit from the rapid expansion of the finance sector of our economy in relation to other sectors).

That's what amuses me about the alt-right's claim that "people want change".

We had change. We damn near got changed to economic extinction. We're sick of change. We've finally righted the ship and there's nothing more we want than to follow a steady course and not have to dread more change.

I hope that Bannon lets Trump run wild with his proposals for change. They'll continue to scare the bejesus out of voters who haven't yet recovered from previous, life-alterning changes already foisted upon them.

 

[jillian]

Everyone knows economists, historians, scientists, the media and anyone with a college degree from anywhere but a faith based institution are all leftists

If they weren't before they got an education and realized how things work, they are now.

well, the more educated people are, the more they're exposed to different kinds of people, the more they accfept others, the more educated people are, the more they are ablse to separate out garbage fact-based info from made up hysterical nonsense.

the more educated people are, the more they live in diverse communities, the more they reject dumb Donald.

Who Are Donald Trump's Supporters, Really?

 

[Al Azar]

So 86% of economists are globalists

Probably. Globalization is just competition in big letters, and most economists think competition is a good thing.

Competition with workers in other countries who make 30 cents an hour is not 'good' for American wages. It is good, however, for multi-national corporations who sell stuff to Americans and also 'good' for consumer prices. Pros and cons.

Competition spurs innovation and efficiency. It promotes trade and that creates growth and everyone benefits, directly or indirectly.

Consider the alternative - no competition, no growth, no trade.

 

[daws101]

daws, let's just examine the cattle futures, because the comparison is accurate...

Here we had Hillary telling us she was an outstanding cattle futures trader, who made an astronomical profit in cattle futures.

If someone suggested Hillary was full of @@@@ and crooked, you'd have responded the same way, saying PROVE IT and then a flurry of four letter words.

Then "expert" Hillary added that she had spotted an uptrend in cattle prices....

except there was a problem. Her most profitable trades and the majority of her profitable trades were SHORTS or bets the price would go DOWN (which it DID), proving Hillary LIED and had NO CLUE WHAT THE PRICE WAS DOING DURING THE TIME OF THE TRADES.

Still, you insist PROVE IT and another barrage of four letter words...

Then the trading firm got shut down for SWITCHING, which is going long and short the same thing, and then allocating the winning and losing trades AFTER the trades, not before. Tyson Foods got all of the "reverse losses" of Hillary's "gains..."

a tax deductible bribe to Hillary.

changing the subject to avoid having to post proof of claims made is also a pussy poster problem and irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[jillian]

So 86% of economists are globalists

Probably. Globalization is just competition in big letters, and most economists think competition is a good thing.

Competition with workers in other countries who make 30 cents an hour is not 'good' for American wages. It is good, however, for multi-national corporations who sell stuff to Americans and also 'good' for consumer prices. Pros and cons.

Competition spurs innovation and efficiency. It promotes trade and that creates growth and everyone benefits, directly or indirectly.

Consider the alternative - no competition, no growth, no trade.

competition for the lowest wages is bad for our society. American workers shouldn't be competing for jobs with Indonesia and mexico and china.

competition for the best workers and providing high-wage jobs is good for our society.

 

[LaDexter]

changing the subject to avoid having to post proof of claims made is also a pussy poster problem and irrelevant to the conversation.

With the Clintons, it always takes a few years to get the truth fully out....

Whitewater took forever, with all sorts of lies, hate, and murder by the Clintons to shut it down. In the end, 12 of 14 Whitewater partners went to prison. Guess who the 2 who didn't were???

 

[Treeshepherd]

Keynes changed his mind about 'free trade' later in life, mainly due to his loss of faith that it would ever be possible to get every country to adhere to the same rules. That's evident today with environmental regulation and worker safety among other things.

Innovation is more of a product of imagination and free thinking and that's why California leads the world in that aspect.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The left love their propaganda pieces.

what part of the survey would you call propaganda?

The part where the establishment pretends that a money launderer like Hillary is better than an efficient proven businessman like Trump.

i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.

do you think maybe it could be you with the problem and not the educated, knowledgable, professional economists?

Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.

so you believe you know better than hundreds of economists.

I believe the economists are cherry picked and/or the results misrepresented.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Consider the alternative - no competition, no growth, no trade.

The alternative I consider is a future where we don't derive satisfaction via rampant consumerism, where we view ourselves as part of nature, where it's not a dick contest to see who has the coolest car, where we share with the poor from our hearts rather than being compelled thru taxation, where we use solar power and produce our own energy rather than empowering politically incestuous utility corporations, where we create entertainment rather than buy it, etc

 

[daws101]

LOL!!!


This idiot actually believes Hillary made a zillion dollars in cattle futures trading, and then never did it again...


LOL!!!

The Clinton Scandal That Still Matters Is Not the One You Think

"o it is possible to link Tyson’s support for the Clintons to water contamination, an ironic circumstance given Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Governor Rick Snyder’s handling of the Flint water crisis.

The Times also reported, “During Mr. Clinton's tenure in Arkansas, Tyson benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans, the placement of company executives on important state boards and favorable decisions on environmental issues.”

Tyson appears to have obtained these results for what looks like a bribe delivered though Hillary Clinton’s commodities account. To quote the company’s former chairman: politics is “a series of unsentimental transactions between those who need votes and those who have money.”"
l

Another fine example of false assumptions.

 

[daws101]

changing the subject to avoid having to post proof of claims made is also a pussy poster problem and irrelevant to the conversation.

With the Clintons, it always takes a few years to get the truth fully out....

Whitewater took forever, with all sorts of lies, hate, and murder by the Clintons to shut it down. In the end, 12 of 14 Whitewater partners went to prison. Guess who the 2 who didn't were???

PPP.

 

[ogibillm]

what part of the survey would you call propaganda?

The part where the establishment pretends that a money launderer like Hillary is better than an efficient proven businessman like Trump.

i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.

do you think maybe it could be you with the problem and not the educated, knowledgable, professional economists?

Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.

so you believe you know better than hundreds of economists.

I believe the economists are cherry picked and/or the results misrepresented.

and you are basing that on what?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The part where the establishment pretends that a money launderer like Hillary is better than an efficient proven businessman like Trump.

i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.

do you think maybe it could be you with the problem and not the educated, knowledgable, professional economists?

Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.

so you believe you know better than hundreds of economists.

I believe the economists are cherry picked and/or the results misrepresented.

and you are basing that on what?

I know how things work, bro.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm always SO impressed by economists...take Larry Summers and Christina Romer! Two venerated Ivy League economists. One taught at Harvard...the other at Berkeley. Both considered "authorities" on economics. So what happened when they left their ivy covered academic towers and ventured out into the real world to help The Chosen One's liberal revolution? I'll tell you what happened...both of them discovered that what seemed so easy to accomplish in the classroom...didn't work at all when they were given control of the economy back in 2009. The Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs in such an EPIC fashion that both Summers and Romer jumped ship and RAN back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley! So spare me the spin, Kiddies...I'm not impressed!

yeah! two people weren't 100% right one time and that means all economists are really just tarot card readers making it up as they go along!

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

so obviously the entire study of economics is flawed.

look, they aren't perfect, and some will make the wrong prediction.

but this is their area of study. they aren't just making it up, they are looking at the available data and using their knowledge to predict which candidate will be best for the economy - and more than half of them say that candidate is clinton.

they may not be right. maybe it's gary johnson. but what you cannot argue with is that the people that know the most about the economy largely believe that donald trump will not be good for it.

now does that in any way give you pause?

That also depends on their perception of HOW to create a strong economy, whether it's through government pumping all their money believing they can control its destiny... or finding ways to encourage small business to grow without having big government pumping millions of dollars to take on the roll of creating jobs.

you act is if it were an either/or proposition...
do you believe you know something those economists don't?

It's like Supreme Court justices. Their perception of belief of what it takes to grow an economy is shaped by their view of the role of government. Either you believe it's Washington's role to spend millions to carry and maintain the role of creating work to create jobs, or your view is based upon the notion that the private sector (particularly small business) is at the heart of generating a strong and healthy economy and any government policy that hinders that ability can stifle economic growth. If Supreme Court Justices have a different perception on how to view and interpret the constitution, what makes you think all economists shared the same ideological background behind their chosen college to determine what perceives and generates economic growth? Why do you think some government financial advisors and estimators got it wrong when they factored in the effect of Obamacare on the current state of the economy with respect to its cost? After all, they can't all be right.

 

[ogibillm]

i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.

do you think maybe it could be you with the problem and not the educated, knowledgable, professional economists?

Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.

so you believe you know better than hundreds of economists.

I believe the economists are cherry picked and/or the results misrepresented.

and you are basing that on what?

I know how things work, bro.

so you have no proof, no evidence, nothong but your desire for those surveyed to have given different responses.

but we should believe you because you "know how things work"

have you considered that you might be engaged in wishful thinking

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Was Trump lying when he said you have better economies under the Democrats than the Republicans?

Sorta like asking if Hillary was lying when she had said she believes marriage should strictly be between a man and a woman. She did after all, go and defend DOMA that her husband signed.

 

[OnePercenter]

"A policy survey of National Association for Business Economics (NABE) members released Monday shows that 55% of business economists feel that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would do the best job as president of managing the U.S. economy. The candidate with the next-largest percentage of the vote was Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson: 15% of NABE members said he’d do the best job managing the economy. Another 15% or respondents said they didn’t know who would be best or that they didn’t have an opinion.
Just 14% chose Donald Trump.
The survey results are remarkable because NABE members aren’t your average ivory tower-dwelling, left-leaning egg heads. They work for businesses, trade associations and government agencies across the country. As NABE director and survey chair LaVaughn Henry put it, these are people who have skin in the game.
“You’re speaking of people who advise business leaders on day-to-day and long term issues where the outcome has to be one way or the other, it can’t just be, ‘let’s study it or research it forever,’” he told FORBES in a recent interview. “These are people who are actually helping to make decisions of do we produce here, or do we produce oversees; do we consume more, consume less.”
By 4 to 1 margin, business economists say Clinton would manage economy better than Trump
America's business economist have spoken, Donald Trump wouldn't make America great. I know I am surprised, based on Trump's history.

Should be; 14% of economists, high on hydrocodone, say that Trump would be the best for the economy.

 

[daws101]

"A policy survey of National Association for Business Economics (NABE) members released Monday shows that 55% of business economists feel that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would do the best job as president of managing the U.S. economy. The candidate with the next-largest percentage of the vote was Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson: 15% of NABE members said he’d do the best job managing the economy. Another 15% or respondents said they didn’t know who would be best or that they didn’t have an opinion.
Just 14% chose Donald Trump.
The survey results are remarkable because NABE members aren’t your average ivory tower-dwelling, left-leaning egg heads. They work for businesses, trade associations and government agencies across the country. As NABE director and survey chair LaVaughn Henry put it, these are people who have skin in the game.
“You’re speaking of people who advise business leaders on day-to-day and long term issues where the outcome has to be one way or the other, it can’t just be, ‘let’s study it or research it forever,’” he told FORBES in a recent interview. “These are people who are actually helping to make decisions of do we produce here, or do we produce oversees; do we consume more, consume less.”
By 4 to 1 margin, business economists say Clinton would manage economy better than Trump
America's business economist have spoken, Donald Trump wouldn't make America great. I know I am surprised, based on Trump's history.

Should be; 14% of economists, high on hydrocodone, say that Trump would be the best for the economy.

Supplied by a drug company Trump has a piece of.

 

[OnePercenter]

Let's see, a large majority of foreign policy and intelligence experts don't like what they see in Donald Trump. What exactly is his strength, that will make America great again?
Anybody?

He's not trying to win. Like Palin and what's his name, Trump is disposable.

 

[Al Azar]

Trump is trying to torpedo his campaign so that he can get to work on building his new media empire to replace Fox and Breitbart as the go-to source for right-wing propaganda.