Mikey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 10:16 pm
I finally have some time to sit down and discuss the realities of Kamala's economic plan. Sorry for the wait.
Let's start at the top.
Nearly 100 Business leaders agree...
Golly. Almost a whole hundred? Do you think that's a lot? And who are they? Are they all military contractors? What they agree upon certainly sounds like organizations whom profit from war, "support the continued strength, security, and reliability of our democracy and economy."
I'd counter with 59% of independent business owners whom, "“strongly or somewhat” approve of the way the Trump administration has handled business-related issues. Also, 53% said the administration’s policies have had a positive impact on their businesses..." Those positive results come even though just 39% of respondents identified as Republican, with 30% independent, 26% Democrat and the rest not sure or preferred not to answer.
Goldman Sachs and Moody's Analysis
Independent fact checkers had this to say about Kamala's claim, "...she is wrong about the Wharton analysis and exaggerates what Goldman Sachs said."
----------------
In the campaign event with Winfrey, Harris cited the “Wharton School of Business.” She is referring to analyses performed by the Penn Wharton Budget Model of Harris’ and Trump’s tax and spending plans, and PWBM did not conclude that her plan “would strengthen the economy, his would weaken it,” as she said.
PWBM found that Harris’ plan would reduce the nation’s gross domestic product more than Trump’s, and would reduce workers’ wages more.
--------------
In her interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, Harris said analysts at Goldman Sachs, a global investment and wealth management firm, “said my plan would grow the economy” and Trump’s “would shrink the economy.”
In fact, the analysts found that the economy would continue to grow under both candidates. If Trump wins, the growth would be a bit smaller in Trump’s first year, but that “abates in 2026,” the report said. If Harris wins, there would be at best a “very slight boost to GDP growth” in the first two years, the report said, referring to the real GDP, which is adjusted for inflation.
The company’s chief executive officer suggested the difference in the economic impact between the two candidates isn’t significant.
----------------
A survey of 40 top economists at the Financial Times and University of Chicago found that 70% to 3% Harris would be better than Trump on inflation
First off, if you're going to survey institutions that are populated by Leftists at a rate exceeding 95%, you're going to get favorable results for...wait for it.... Leftist policies. Government spending is what drives inflation. Period. Full stop. Kamala is going to spend more government money than Donald Trump. This is proven science. Recent estimates say we'll be printing 3-4 trillion dollars per year to fund her agenda. Claiming Trump's tax cuts will cause more inflation than spending $3T a year on war and carbon capture is some fucking bullshit.
Secondly, this kind of rhetoric from economists has happened before, and I'm certain you fell for it then too. In 2016, cnbc published an article entitled, "370 top economists publish scathing letter against ‘dangerous, destructive’ Trump." In the article, the economists state, "“Donald Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality... “If elected, he poses a unique danger to the functioning of democratic and economic institutions, and to the prosperity of the country." I know you agree with that entire statement but four years of Trump economic policy offer a reality vastly different from the panicked delusions of 370 politically active "economists."
-----------------
Tariffs will raise costs and increase inflation
This is fearmongering. The ONLY thing that causes inflation too much money chasing too few goods. Kamala & Friends like to claim all cost increases are "inflation." It's the same modality that claims corporate greed causes inflation. That's not possible because corporate greed does not control the money supply. Inflation is regulated by the Federal Reserve through prime interest rates and money printing. Period. Full stop. There is no third leg. We printed too much money too fast while shutting down businesses during COVID and the combination led to inflation. Claiming otherwise is a manipulation tactic and should be called out.
Tariffs penalize foreign companies for making products overseas. In response to a tariff, they will probably raise prices. Just like they will if the price of fuel or raw materials go up. The tariff acts like a tax and should encourage domestic production over foreign production. In the short term, consumers pay higher prices. In the long term, production should return to domestic shores and create jobs and economic growth domestically. Threatening a tariff as a bargaining tool can be sufficient to encourage domestic production and in my opinion, it should be used as such. The economic models Leftists think tanks are using to claim Americans will pay $4000/year more are assuming 60% tariffs are being implemented and that's simply false. A 60% tariff is a bargaining tool. Applying it to an economic model is a political move. Anyone capable of thinking for themselves and not basing their opinion on an infographic with no citation or published methodology would know this.
-------------------
In summary, the infographic is selling you something. Think for yourself.
). Who has threatened to arrest his political opponents and journalists who he doesn’t like. Who stated today that he would not accept the results of the election if he doesn’t win. etc., etc., etc.
