Donald Trump for President?

[Shatari]

Are you kidding? Daffy is a thousand times better!

 

[AWdeV]

Donald is a bit daffy already though.

 

[Caba`drin]

Except the problem with businessmen is that a lot of them are in government right now. They have long and sordid histories with large corporations, which now control great influence within the current US government system as a result. And it is this close relationship that sees so many unwise decisions that do not benefit the 98% of US citizens, but the top 2% who are part of a group of interconnected corporations and government organisations.

This. Times a thousand.

Isn't the Cheney-Bush-et al. bad taste still in your mouth? Does "Halliburton" not ring any bells? Or the "good for business" de-regulation of finance and the financial crisis? The last thing the US needs is more business interests in power.

 

[Tibertus]

And yet a strong economy is reliant on strong businesses within that economy. Too much regulation of business, in addition to idiotic economic policy can lead to too much inflation, for instance, the Fed practically flooding the US money supply, which will lead to undesirable inflation even with a stagnant job market. Too many people only see the economy through a Keynesian colored lens.

 

[Aethelbert]

I don't particularly like him so no.

 

[Merentha]

And yet a strong economy is reliant on strong businesses within that economy. Too much regulation of business, in addition to idiotic economic policy can lead to too much inflation, for instance, the Fed practically flooding the US money supply, which will lead to undesirable inflation even with a stagnant job market. Too many people only see the economy through a Keynesian colored lens.

So, your solution to the unregulated free market failing is to get a businessman in power, who will regulate everything?  Really, you think we're in a ****show of a depression because there was too much regulation? 

And, businessmen may have dealings with foreign businesses in a business context.  Not in other senses.  Whatever.  There is no good "class" or job to be placed into president in the first place.  Trump, though, wants to "raise taxes" on countries that deal with us.  That's interesting, since we don't tax other countries.  Assuming he's talking about tariffs, that's still not the brightest idea.  Finally, his idea of world policy?  Call OPEC and demand that oil prices come down.  Yeah, that will work.  They're not businessmen, or anything.  And they're certainly not going to just hike tax prices as a response to an explicit threat against them. 

edit:  I'd also hate his social platform.  But whatever.  Businesses make millions by exploiting other people.  I do not want a man with that mindset in power. 

 

[Uhtred Ragnarson]

Except the problem with businessmen is that a lot of them are in government right now. They have long and sordid histories with large corporations, which now control great influence within the current US government system as a result. And it is this close relationship that sees so many unwise decisions that do not benefit the 98% of US citizens, but the top 2% who are part of a group of interconnected corporations and government organisations.

This. Times a thousand.

Isn't the Cheney-Bush-et al. bad taste still in your mouth? Does "Halliburton" not ring any bells? Or the "good for business" de-regulation of finance and the financial crisis? The last thing the US needs is more business interests in power.

this.

 

[Uhtred Ragnarson]

And yet a strong economy is reliant on strong businesses within that economy. Too much regulation of business, in addition to idiotic economic policy can lead to too much inflation, for instance, the Fed practically flooding the US money supply, which will lead to undesirable inflation even with a stagnant job market. Too many people only see the economy through a Keynesian colored lens.

So, your solution to the unregulated free market failing is to get a businessman in power, who will regulate everything?  Really, you think we're in a ****show of a depression because there was too much regulation? 

And, businessmen may have dealings with foreign businesses in a business context.  Not in other senses.  Whatever.  There is no good "class" or job to be placed into president in the first place.  Trump, though, wants to "raise taxes" on countries that deal with us.  That's interesting, since we don't tax other countries.  Assuming he's talking about tariffs, that's still not the brightest idea.  Finally, his idea of world policy?  Call OPEC and demand that oil prices come down.  Yeah, that will work.  They're not businessmen, or anything.  And they're certainly not going to just hike tax prices as a response to an explicit threat against them. 

edit:  I'd also hate his social platform.  But whatever.  Businesses make millions by exploiting other people.  I do not want a man with that mindset in power.

love that 

 

[Wolfang]

This is why the US should be governed by England again, to make the tough decisions about who should rule one of the most powerful countries on earth, to others

 

[johneb]

Donald Trumps hairstyle alone should disqualify him from holding a public office.

 

[Familyguy1]

Donald Trumps hairstyle alone should disqualify him from holding a public office.

And his damn accent

 

[AWdeV]

Man, I could replace "Donald Trump" with "Geert Wilders" in both those statements.

 

[BattleOfValmy]

And yet a strong economy is reliant on strong businesses within that economy. Too much regulation of business, in addition to idiotic economic policy can lead to too much inflation, for instance, the Fed practically flooding the US money supply, which will lead to undesirable inflation even with a stagnant job market. Too many people only see the economy through a Keynesian colored lens.

That's why economies that are more free-market and de-regulated have surpluses, right? Like the USA?

Oh, wait.

In 1980, the U.S. public debt was $909 billion - or an amount equal to 33.3% of America's gross domestic product (GDP). By 1990, that number had more than tripled to $3.2 trillion - or 55.9% of GDP.[42] In 2001 the national debt was $5.7 trillion; however, the debt-to-GDP ratio remained at 1990 levels.[43] Debt levels rose quickly in the following decade, and on January 28, 2010, the US debt ceiling was raised to $14.3 trillion dollars.[44] Based on the 2010 U.S. budget, total national debt will grow to nearly 100% of GDP, versus a level of approximately 80% in early 2009.[45] The White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019,[46] up from $202 billion in 2009.[47]

The [Swedish] government budget has improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993. In the last decade, from 1998 to present, the government has run a surplus every year, except for 2003 and 2004. The surplus for 2007 is expected to be 138 billion ($20b) kronor.[24] The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility.

 

[Uhtred Ragnarson]

Man, I could replace "Donald Trump" with "Geert Wilders" in both those statements.

lol very true. That man is a piece of work... (Geert)

 

[Tibertus]

And yet a strong economy is reliant on strong businesses within that economy. Too much regulation of business, in addition to idiotic economic policy can lead to too much inflation, for instance, the Fed practically flooding the US money supply, which will lead to undesirable inflation even with a stagnant job market. Too many people only see the economy through a Keynesian colored lens.

That's why economies that are more free-market and de-regulated have surpluses, right? Like the USA?

Oh, wait.

In 1980, the U.S. public debt was $909 billion - or an amount equal to 33.3% of America's gross domestic product (GDP). By 1990, that number had more than tripled to $3.2 trillion - or 55.9% of GDP.[42] In 2001 the national debt was $5.7 trillion; however, the debt-to-GDP ratio remained at 1990 levels.[43] Debt levels rose quickly in the following decade, and on January 28, 2010, the US debt ceiling was raised to $14.3 trillion dollars.[44] Based on the 2010 U.S. budget, total national debt will grow to nearly 100% of GDP, versus a level of approximately 80% in early 2009.[45] The White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019,[46] up from $202 billion in 2009.[47]

The [Swedish] government budget has improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993. In the last decade, from 1998 to present, the government has run a surplus every year, except for 2003 and 2004. The surplus for 2007 is expected to be 138 billion ($20b) kronor.[24] The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility.

You do know that running a surplus or deficit in the national budget does not denote whether an economy is strong or not, right? Reagan's administration did see a very large expansion in the US economy. Also, you're forgetting about the 1970s recession, when stagnation AND inflation were problems, and a large part was due to regulations placed on steel and oil industries.

And yet a strong economy is reliant on strong businesses within that economy. Too much regulation of business, in addition to idiotic economic policy can lead to too much inflation, for instance, the Fed practically flooding the US money supply, which will lead to undesirable inflation even with a stagnant job market. Too many people only see the economy through a Keynesian colored lens.

So, your solution to the unregulated free market failing is to get a businessman in power, who will regulate everything?  Really, you think we're in a ****show of a depression because there was too much regulation? 

And, businessmen may have dealings with foreign businesses in a business context.  Not in other senses.  Whatever.  There is no good "class" or job to be placed into president in the first place.  Trump, though, wants to "raise taxes" on countries that deal with us.  That's interesting, since we don't tax other countries.  Assuming he's talking about tariffs, that's still not the brightest idea.  Finally, his idea of world policy?  Call OPEC and demand that oil prices come down.  Yeah, that will work.  They're not businessmen, or anything.  And they're certainly not going to just hike tax prices as a response to an explicit threat against them. 

edit:  I'd also hate his social platform.  But whatever.  Businesses make millions by exploiting other people.  I do not want a man with that mindset in power. 

Wow, you made a stance for me, which I never said I was for, and then proceed to argue against me when I never said anything about that in the first place? Good jerb.

 

[AWdeV]

You basically said "too much regulation leads to too much inflation". It kind of implies a stance.

 

[mfberg]

I'll go with the stance that the wrong or too little enforcement of government and business regulations leads to world wide recessions.

I sure hope Mr. Trump is smart enough not to run.

 

[Tibertus]

You basically said "too much regulation leads to too much inflation". It kind of implies a stance.

I was referring to Merentha putting the words into my mouth: "So, your solution to the unregulated free market failing is to get a businessman in power, who will regulate everything?" ****, I never had any support for Trump in the first place, just thought it was a funny thing to post. Of course everyone here thinks they're so damn smart that they need to make the discussion more than it is. And then I get dragged into it... ****. Just discuss Trump being silly, leave the demonization of the free market or glorification of deregulation for a different thread.

 

[Lyze]

So he's said, as he has in the past, said he may run for president. What would you think of President Trump? Would you vote for him? Why or why not?

The above quote is not representative of a "funny thing to post". It is an honest inquiry and invitation to debate. Now, when presented with a number of legitimate points to which you are theoretically obligated to respond to by general debate etiquette, you dismiss us as being overly serious and your original purpose as frivolous and amusing. I do not believe that.

 

[Tibertus]

I know it looks like that, I ****ed it up. I really did mean for a more lighthearted discussion but have no idea what I did... 

Thread locked for my own fault.