World renowned economist changes tune on Trump tariffs: Maybe he’s ‘outsmarted us all’

American corporations have been awash in cash ever since they started off-shoring. While executive compensation has increased by over 1000% since 1980, worker wages, in real buying terms, have declined. The cost of labor, as a percentage of costs, is now LOWER than it was in the Guilded Age.

While GDP increased, employers said the gains were due to automation, and not the workers, so no raises for you. The executives deserved the raises because it was their brilliance which was making their companies so profitable. They absorbed increases in materials, supplies, insurance, premises, transportation, and everything else that goes into their bottom line, but cried poverty every time wage increases came up.

As one example, I'll use my job as law clerk. In 1980, when I had an electric typewriter and a photocopier, I used to close between 5 and 10 deals a month. I was paid $300 per week $1,300 per month. I billed $6000 per month. In 1985, I got a word processor, and suddenly, I could close 15 to 20 deals a month. I was now making $500 per week $2,200 per month, and I was billing $12,000 per month.

By the time I retired in 2011, with a fully computerized system, I could close 30 deals and bill $24,000 per month, and I was paid $4000 - 17% of billings. And while my earnings had tripled during this time frame, my employers earnings from my work, rose by 427%. And I'm one of those who wages actually grew during this time frame.

I have friends and family members who were making $14 per hour when NAFTA was ratified in the early 1990's, saw their wages drop like a stone after NAFTA came in, and finally got back to making $14 per hour in 2010.

This disparity has everything to do with government employment and taxation laws. The Chinese are not "stealing" your jobs. Neither are immigrants. Your CORPORATIONS are giving your jobs away. Nobody is "stealing" them at all. Your government and your corporations are screwing you over, and you keep letting it happen.
It's pretty complex but the rules havent kept the playing field level and income inequality in the U.S. has worsened over the past several decades.

  • Wages for middle- and low-income workers have grown slowly since the 1970s, while wages for high earners (especially the top 1%) have soared.
  • Productivity has increased, but the gains have not been evenly shared. Most of the benefit has gone to capital owners and top executives.
  • High-paying jobs in finance and tech have disproportionately rewarded a small number of highly skilled workers and executives.
  • Stock-based compensation (e.g., stock options, restricted stock) has ballooned executive pay.
  • Union membership has dropped from about 20% in 1983 to around 10% today, weakening worker bargaining power.
  • Non-unionized workers have had less leverage to negotiate better pay and benefits.
  • Rise in non-traditional employment (gig work, freelance, part-time) has reduced job security and benefits, disproportionately affecting lower-income workers.
  • Those with college and advanced degrees have seen much greater income growth compared to those with only a high school diploma or less.
  • Automation and globalization have further hollowed out middle-skill jobs.
  • Federal tax rates on high incomes, capital gains, and estates have decreased since the 1980s.
  • Wealth compounds for the already-rich via investments, while working-class wealth stagnates or shrinks.
  • Economic opportunity has become concentrated in major urban areas, widening gaps between regions and making upward mobility harder in rural and post-industrial areas.
  • Programs that reduce inequality (e.g., welfare, housing support) were cut or restructured in the 1980s and beyond, reducing their impact.
 
It's pretty complex but the rules havent kept the playing field level and income inequality in the U.S. has worsened over the past several decades.

  • Wages for middle- and low-income workers have grown slowly since the 1970s, while wages for high earners (especially the top 1%) have soared.
  • Productivity has increased, but the gains have not been evenly shared. Most of the benefit has gone to capital owners and top executives.
  • High-paying jobs in finance and tech have disproportionately rewarded a small number of highly skilled workers and executives.
  • Stock-based compensation (e.g., stock options, restricted stock) has ballooned executive pay.
  • Union membership has dropped from about 20% in 1983 to around 10% today, weakening worker bargaining power.
  • Non-unionized workers have had less leverage to negotiate better pay and benefits.
  • Rise in non-traditional employment (gig work, freelance, part-time) has reduced job security and benefits, disproportionately affecting lower-income workers.
  • Those with college and advanced degrees have seen much greater income growth compared to those with only a high school diploma or less.
  • Automation and globalization have further hollowed out middle-skill jobs.
  • Federal tax rates on high incomes, capital gains, and estates have decreased since the 1980s.
  • Wealth compounds for the already-rich via investments, while working-class wealth stagnates or shrinks.
  • Economic opportunity has become concentrated in major urban areas, widening gaps between regions and making upward mobility harder in rural and post-industrial areas.
  • Programs that reduce inequality (e.g., welfare, housing support) were cut or restructured in the 1980s and beyond, reducing their impact.
And your point?
 
It's pretty complex but the rules havent kept the playing field level and income inequality in the U.S. has worsened over the past several decades.

  • Wages for middle- and low-income workers have grown slowly since the 1970s, while wages for high earners (especially the top 1%) have soared.
  • Productivity has increased, but the gains have not been evenly shared. Most of the benefit has gone to capital owners and top executives.
  • High-paying jobs in finance and tech have disproportionately rewarded a small number of highly skilled workers and executives.
  • Stock-based compensation (e.g., stock options, restricted stock) has ballooned executive pay.
  • Union membership has dropped from about 20% in 1983 to around 10% today, weakening worker bargaining power.
  • Non-unionized workers have had less leverage to negotiate better pay and benefits.
  • Rise in non-traditional employment (gig work, freelance, part-time) has reduced job security and benefits, disproportionately affecting lower-income workers.
  • Those with college and advanced degrees have seen much greater income growth compared to those with only a high school diploma or less.
  • Automation and globalization have further hollowed out middle-skill jobs.
  • Federal tax rates on high incomes, capital gains, and estates have decreased since the 1980s.
  • Wealth compounds for the already-rich via investments, while working-class wealth stagnates or shrinks.
  • Economic opportunity has become concentrated in major urban areas, widening gaps between regions and making upward mobility harder in rural and post-industrial areas.
  • Programs that reduce inequality (e.g., welfare, housing support) were cut or restructured in the 1980s and beyond, reducing their impact.

It's really difficult to put this on a bumper sticker and run on it, but this is it in a nutshell.

The one addition I would make to your list is that since the 1970's successive Supreme Court decisions have squarely given the rights of the shareholders precedence over the rights of the workers, the community or the nation, in regards to the operation of corporations.

While incorporating documents say that "The Corporation shall have all of the rights of a natural person to buy and hold property, and to conduct business in the normal course", the SC seems to have interpreted this to read "The Corporations shall have all of the rights of a natural person", period, which is not the intention at all. There is no punctuation in that statement to give natural rights other than the property rights and the ability to operate a business.

It is this same statement that was used to give corporations the right to donate, run PAC's and participate in elections like a "natural person".

The concept of "good corporate citizens" was trampled underfoot. Shareholders could and did sue the Directors for failing to maximize their profits by off-shoring, and other practices which cost workers their jobs, and destroyed local tax bases for communities. The shareholders always won.
 
It's pretty complex but the rules havent kept the playing field level and income inequality in the U.S. has worsened over the past several decades.

  • Wages for middle- and low-income workers have grown slowly since the 1970s, while wages for high earners (especially the top 1%) have soared.
  • Productivity has increased, but the gains have not been evenly shared. Most of the benefit has gone to capital owners and top executives.
  • High-paying jobs in finance and tech have disproportionately rewarded a small number of highly skilled workers and executives.
  • Stock-based compensation (e.g., stock options, restricted stock) has ballooned executive pay.
  • Union membership has dropped from about 20% in 1983 to around 10% today, weakening worker bargaining power.
  • Non-unionized workers have had less leverage to negotiate better pay and benefits.
  • Rise in non-traditional employment (gig work, freelance, part-time) has reduced job security and benefits, disproportionately affecting lower-income workers.
  • Those with college and advanced degrees have seen much greater income growth compared to those with only a high school diploma or less.
  • Automation and globalization have further hollowed out middle-skill jobs.
  • Federal tax rates on high incomes, capital gains, and estates have decreased since the 1980s.
  • Wealth compounds for the already-rich via investments, while working-class wealth stagnates or shrinks.
  • Economic opportunity has become concentrated in major urban areas, widening gaps between regions and making upward mobility harder in rural and post-industrial areas.
  • Programs that reduce inequality (e.g., welfare, housing support) were cut or restructured in the 1980s and beyond, reducing their impact.
And what the hell were you expecting when you open the doors for 20 million illegals?
 
It's really difficult to put this on a bumper sticker and run on it, but this is it in a nutshell.

The one addition I would make to your list is that since the 1970's successive Supreme Court decisions have squarely given the rights of the shareholders precedence over the rights of the workers, the community or the nation, in regards to the operation of corporations.

While incorporating documents say that "The Corporation shall have all of the rights of a natural person to buy and hold property, and to conduct business in the normal course", the SC seems to have interpreted this to read "The Corporations shall have all of the rights of a natural person", period, which is not the intention at all. There is no punctuation in that statement to give natural rights other than the property rights and the ability to operate a business.

It is this same statement that was used to give corporations the right to donate, run PAC's and participate in elections like a "natural person".

The concept of "good corporate citizens" was trampled underfoot. Shareholders could and did sue the Directors for failing to maximize their profits by off-shoring, and other practices which cost workers their jobs, and destroyed local tax bases for communities. The shareholders always won.
Stay in your country
 
Why are people hanging their hat on what one economist says?

He could be wrong as he is an economist.
 
A world-renowned economist who previously raised the alarm about President Donald Trump’s steep tariffs now suspects that the president may have “outsmarted all of us.”

In a blog post published on Saturday, Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Sløk speculated that the president might keep the tariffs low long enough to ease economic uncertainty while also delivering a significant uptick in tax revenue.
Recall that in May, President Trump initiated a 90-day pause on his high tariffs. The pause has coincided with an uptick in the stock market as economic uncertainty has declined.

Sløk’s thesis, as outlined in the blog, appears to be that Trump might keep the pause going even after July 9 so as to keep the market happy and steadily moving back up toward its previous record highs.

If that were to happen, America would benefit both from a skyrocketing stock market AND the revenue from the lowered but still in effect tariffs.

“As we approach the Trump administration’s self-imposed 90-day deadline for trade deals, markets are starting to speculate about what comes next,” Sløk began in his blog post.


BJ -
Why do people just keep underestimating our beloved President?
Add the Nobel Prize for Economics; officially the Sveriges Riksbanken Prize in Economic Sciences to the list of Nobel Prizes that he deserves.
I strongly disagree. This is going to set US back even further. I hope we don't have 3:more years of this garbage.
 
I strongly disagree. This is going to set US back even further. I hope we don't have 3:more years of this garbage.
haahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaahahahaahahaha
 
A world-renowned economist who previously raised the alarm about President Donald Trump’s steep tariffs now suspects that the president may have “outsmarted all of us.”

In a blog post published on Saturday, Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Sløk speculated that the president might keep the tariffs low long enough to ease economic uncertainty while also delivering a significant uptick in tax revenue.
Recall that in May, President Trump initiated a 90-day pause on his high tariffs. The pause has coincided with an uptick in the stock market as economic uncertainty has declined.

Sløk’s thesis, as outlined in the blog, appears to be that Trump might keep the pause going even after July 9 so as to keep the market happy and steadily moving back up toward its previous record highs.

If that were to happen, America would benefit both from a skyrocketing stock market AND the revenue from the lowered but still in effect tariffs.

“As we approach the Trump administration’s self-imposed 90-day deadline for trade deals, markets are starting to speculate about what comes next,” Sløk began in his blog post.


BJ -
Why do people just keep underestimating our beloved President?
Add the Nobel Prize for Economics; officially the Sveriges Riksbanken Prize in Economic Sciences to the list of Nobel Prizes that he deserves.
 
you should read the link in the OP. It's a good one. LOL I think it mentions that same dude. Funny huh?

pssst, he changed his mind, says it right in the OP!! you should read it.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom