Atlas Forum

General Politics => Economics => Topic started by: Free Bird on January 02, 2019, 03:45:33 am



Title: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Free Bird on January 02, 2019, 03:45:33 am
Trump and Tucker are odd ducks economically. They strike me as a strange mix of Neoliberalism and Keynesianism. They both favor minimizing regulation (although Tucker has said he would regulate automation as a way to save workers' jobs) as a way to spur growth (along with tax cuts, more on that later), but have both openly hinted that they wouldn't mind having the United States return to more aggressive trustbusting, especially with newer industries, and have strongly implied that they are okay with labor unions.

They, Trump especially, are protectionist in nature, but otherwise, favor lower taxes. But that's where it also gets tricky. Trump cut corporate taxes in a supply-side fashion but seems to want/believe his income tax cuts to be demand-side (Keynesian) in nature, at least publicly. At the same time, Trump has railed against the Fed for raising rates, even if they are meant to more closely match the mood of the market, a tenant of the Austrian school. They have also both spoken in favor of infrastructure spending as a sort of "investment in the people," generating economic growth both by the construction itself and by the improvements in quality of life/productivity that the completed projects would grant people (i.e getting to work faster and so on).

They, Carlson especially, favor merit-based immigration under the belief that it will increase wages for the lower classes (at least publicly that's one of their primary reasons but that's neither here nor there for our purposes here).

Lastly, and perhaps most interestingly, they are, for right-winger standards, very protective of entitlements and the safety net, barely hiding their disgust at the idea of cutting them like Paul Ryan compulsively suggests. There are other strange examples like this, but most of you probably already know them, anyway! In short, really, they seem to favor a healthy/not excessively business environment for the employers, but not at the expense of a fair/monitored playing field and good conditions for the employees, which most people in their respective camps tend to view as mutually exclusive, at least in my experience.

It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this discussion, whether or not you agree with these philosophical inclinations. I just want to find out what economic school of thought they seem to be subscribing to because their ideas seem very all over the place/pragmatic in my eyes.

What school is this? Even if they don't actively devote themselves to the school, most people, economically, will follow almost all of the tenants of this or that system of thought. Not these two, unless I am missing something. Do they belong to a school at all, or are they just pragmatists (again, at least publicly)? Or, perhaps, have they, Tucker especially, created a whole new school of economic thought by taking aspects from Keynesianism and Neoliberalism/the Chicago School and putting them together? Part of me, personally, wants to think of them as the first advocates for the American School in quite some time, but I don't think, at least from what I know about it, that all of the pieces are there, at least not yet.

Again, no owning the cons here, just analysis of what they believe through the lens of economic philosophy, please. Maybe disassociate the ideas from the people I named here and just examine them, as a totality, on their own, Maybe that will help to temporarily rid most of your minds of the very likely hatreds you hold for both of these men.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: 136or142 on January 02, 2019, 04:12:48 am
The simplest answer is that they are both economic illiterates and don't have anywhere near enough of an understanding of economics to comprise any school of economic thought.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Free Bird on January 02, 2019, 09:20:20 am
The simplest answer is that they are both economic illiterates and don't have anywhere near enough of an understanding of economics to comprise any school of economic thought.

Ah so they hail from the prestigious “Meh Whatever I Feel Like” School LOL


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Intell on January 02, 2019, 09:44:42 am
Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: mvd10 on January 02, 2019, 12:53:00 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: 136or142 on January 02, 2019, 02:47:45 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 03, 2019, 12:42:34 am
To begin with, as Mvd has pointed out, politicians do what is necessary for advancement, those that don't like Ron Paul or even to a large extent Paul Ryan, find themselves pushing stuff that the broad electorate won't sink their teeth into at all.


To answer the previous questions, it is nationalist economics on the broad scale, but not in terms of nationalized industries, central planning and or even encouraging monopolies.


It is economic nationalism like that of Hamilton or Clay. The protectionism, the infrastructure, the soft money etc. This is then combined with the deregulation, trust busting and the tax cuts. The tax cuts are political at this point, that is a Republican indentity issue and the deregulation is another bone to the current Republican orthodoxy. The Trust busting is a Bismarckian move, or a Teddy Roosevelt move if you prefer his example like Tucker does. Release some of the pressure and balance the market with renewed competition to avoid the situation getting worse and a communist revolution happening. That is the whole line of thinking that Tucker used to justify his defense of TR and trust busting. At its core that approach, is the most "traditional conservative" response one can see in the current era. The type of action that Bismarck would have taken. "Calm the masses and restore some balance, otherwise my head will be on a pike."

If you go back to the 1870's, you will see in some writings, the Republican platform on economics described as being sort of a "pro-business nationalism". We are not used to this because we are used to pro-business meaning advancing the interests of global business concerns and thus free trade and immigration, combined with less regulation and tax cuts. Those days are gone because that demographic is gone that pushed for that and it hasn't been delivering the goods.

What we are seeing with Trump and tucker is a natural evolution based on current economic conditions and the current demographics that dominate the Republican Party.

It is not incoherent any more than expecting people to move to look for work and then tell them to rely on churches and family for help instead of the government. It is just glossed over. Free traders love to ret-con the American System out of existence for instance and almost no one talks about Frederich List anymore.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: brucejoel99 on January 03, 2019, 12:43:45 am
The simplest answer is that they are both economic illiterates and don't have anywhere near enough of an understanding of economics to comprise any school of economic thought.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 03, 2019, 03:13:03 am
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: 136or142 on January 03, 2019, 05:17:25 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


I recognize this, though these economic dislocations are caused by many other factors than free trade.  They include:
1.Technological change
2.Decline of private sector unions
3.Increasing monopsony through non compete clauses.

Trump pays lip service to caring about workers, so he can't even really be called an 'economic nationalist' except for wealthy U.S corporate interests who gain through tariffs.  


Edit: you had mentioned 'pro business nationalism.'  That leads right back to the days when nearly everybody but the nobles were serfs.

If Trump actually cared about workers or workers' rights and unions, he would never have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/supreme-court-backs-employers-over-workers/355923002/

This is the problem that I've referred to before with the Trump/Republican cult: they don't even realize when the rhetoric from Trump and the Congressional Republicans doesn't match what they actually do.  From my perspective, it's hard to have sympathy for people who are actively assisting in slitting their own throat, while also falling for believing that the scapegoats Trump and Congressional Republicans (and Republican governors and State Legislators) throw up to them are the real cause of their problems.


Also, Gordon Ritchie was the Canadian free trade negotiator who referred to Trump as ''appallingly ignorant.''


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Izzyeviel on January 03, 2019, 06:56:48 pm
I have a horrible feeling their philosophy is to completely destroy the US economy in order to bring about a country where there are zero social/healthcare/regulations & that any taxation raised goes to law & order/army/the wall


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 03, 2019, 09:04:41 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


I recognize this, though these economic dislocations are caused by many other factors than free trade.  They include:
1.Technological change
2.Decline of private sector unions
3.Increasing monopsony through non compete clauses.

Trump pays lip service to caring about workers, so he can't even really be called an 'economic nationalist' except for wealthy U.S corporate interests who gain through tariffs.  


Edit: you had mentioned 'pro business nationalism.'  That leads right back to the days when nearly everybody but the nobles were serfs.

If Trump actually cared about workers or workers' rights and unions, he would never have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/supreme-court-backs-employers-over-workers/355923002/

This is the problem that I've referred to before with the Trump/Republican cult: they don't even realize when the rhetoric from Trump and the Congressional Republicans doesn't match what they actually do.  From my perspective, it's hard to have sympathy for people who are actively assisting in slitting their own throat, while also falling for believing that the scapegoats Trump and Congressional Republicans (and Republican governors and State Legislators) throw up to them are the real cause of their problems.


Also, Gordon Ritchie was the Canadian free trade negotiator who referred to Trump as ''appallingly ignorant.''

But you missed my point, if these problems and dislocations had been addressed, at lot of these people would not have turned to Trump. Politics has a way or reshuffling to address the present issues and when some of them are not being addressed, someone will fill that void. You can either decide whether it is a respectable leader or a monster coming to devour your soul.

Yes the rhetoric is not going to match up with the actions (as if that is anything new to politics or a novelty created by Trump), because
1) Trump is incompetent
2) Trump is lazy
3) Congress exists on a previous political paradigm and is thus behind the curve in realizing that change has occurred and finally
4) Big money still reigns supreme and dictates the conversation in the Congress and the politically established types.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: 136or142 on January 04, 2019, 08:56:51 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


I recognize this, though these economic dislocations are caused by many other factors than free trade.  They include:
1.Technological change
2.Decline of private sector unions
3.Increasing monopsony through non compete clauses.

Trump pays lip service to caring about workers, so he can't even really be called an 'economic nationalist' except for wealthy U.S corporate interests who gain through tariffs.  


Edit: you had mentioned 'pro business nationalism.'  That leads right back to the days when nearly everybody but the nobles were serfs.

If Trump actually cared about workers or workers' rights and unions, he would never have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/supreme-court-backs-employers-over-workers/355923002/

This is the problem that I've referred to before with the Trump/Republican cult: they don't even realize when the rhetoric from Trump and the Congressional Republicans doesn't match what they actually do.  From my perspective, it's hard to have sympathy for people who are actively assisting in slitting their own throat, while also falling for believing that the scapegoats Trump and Congressional Republicans (and Republican governors and State Legislators) throw up to them are the real cause of their problems.


Also, Gordon Ritchie was the Canadian free trade negotiator who referred to Trump as ''appallingly ignorant.''

But you missed my point, if these problems and dislocations had been addressed, at lot of these people would not have turned to Trump. Politics has a way or reshuffling to address the present issues and when some of them are not being addressed, someone will fill that void. You can either decide whether it is a respectable leader or a monster coming to devour your soul.

Yes the rhetoric is not going to match up with the actions (as if that is anything new to politics or a novelty created by Trump), because
1) Trump is incompetent
2) Trump is lazy
3) Congress exists on a previous political paradigm and is thus behind the curve in realizing that change has occurred and finally
4) Big money still reigns supreme and dictates the conversation in the Congress and the politically established types.

This doesn't explain why the same people who voted for Trump also voted for Congressional Republicans who are virtually all Randian anti worker.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Izzyeviel on January 06, 2019, 07:02:24 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


I recognize this, though these economic dislocations are caused by many other factors than free trade.  They include:
1.Technological change
2.Decline of private sector unions
3.Increasing monopsony through non compete clauses.

Trump pays lip service to caring about workers, so he can't even really be called an 'economic nationalist' except for wealthy U.S corporate interests who gain through tariffs.  


Edit: you had mentioned 'pro business nationalism.'  That leads right back to the days when nearly everybody but the nobles were serfs.

If Trump actually cared about workers or workers' rights and unions, he would never have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/supreme-court-backs-employers-over-workers/355923002/

This is the problem that I've referred to before with the Trump/Republican cult: they don't even realize when the rhetoric from Trump and the Congressional Republicans doesn't match what they actually do.  From my perspective, it's hard to have sympathy for people who are actively assisting in slitting their own throat, while also falling for believing that the scapegoats Trump and Congressional Republicans (and Republican governors and State Legislators) throw up to them are the real cause of their problems.


Also, Gordon Ritchie was the Canadian free trade negotiator who referred to Trump as ''appallingly ignorant.''

But you missed my point, if these problems and dislocations had been addressed, at lot of these people would not have turned to Trump. Politics has a way or reshuffling to address the present issues and when some of them are not being addressed, someone will fill that void. You can either decide whether it is a respectable leader or a monster coming to devour your soul.

Yes the rhetoric is not going to match up with the actions (as if that is anything new to politics or a novelty created by Trump), because
1) Trump is incompetent
2) Trump is lazy
3) Congress exists on a previous political paradigm and is thus behind the curve in realizing that change has occurred and finally
4) Big money still reigns supreme and dictates the conversation in the Congress and the politically established types.

This doesn't explain why the same people who voted for Trump also voted for Congressional Republicans who are virtually all Randian anti worker.

Voters aren't the most logical of people.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: PSOL on January 06, 2019, 11:58:21 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


I recognize this, though these economic dislocations are caused by many other factors than free trade.  They include:
1.Technological change
2.Decline of private sector unions
3.Increasing monopsony through non compete clauses.

Trump pays lip service to caring about workers, so he can't even really be called an 'economic nationalist' except for wealthy U.S corporate interests who gain through tariffs.  


Edit: you had mentioned 'pro business nationalism.'  That leads right back to the days when nearly everybody but the nobles were serfs.

If Trump actually cared about workers or workers' rights and unions, he would never have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/supreme-court-backs-employers-over-workers/355923002/

This is the problem that I've referred to before with the Trump/Republican cult: they don't even realize when the rhetoric from Trump and the Congressional Republicans doesn't match what they actually do.  From my perspective, it's hard to have sympathy for people who are actively assisting in slitting their own throat, while also falling for believing that the scapegoats Trump and Congressional Republicans (and Republican governors and State Legislators) throw up to them are the real cause of their problems.


Also, Gordon Ritchie was the Canadian free trade negotiator who referred to Trump as ''appallingly ignorant.''

But you missed my point, if these problems and dislocations had been addressed, at lot of these people would not have turned to Trump. Politics has a way or reshuffling to address the present issues and when some of them are not being addressed, someone will fill that void. You can either decide whether it is a respectable leader or a monster coming to devour your soul.

Yes the rhetoric is not going to match up with the actions (as if that is anything new to politics or a novelty created by Trump), because
1) Trump is incompetent
2) Trump is lazy
3) Congress exists on a previous political paradigm and is thus behind the curve in realizing that change has occurred and finally
4) Big money still reigns supreme and dictates the conversation in the Congress and the politically established types.

This doesn't explain why the same people who voted for Trump also voted for Congressional Republicans who are virtually all Randian anti worker.
The voters care more about punishing hardworking people due to not being in their demographic & culturally-conforming grouping than any long-term benefit to themselves.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: AtorBoltox on January 08, 2019, 01:09:25 am
Fascism


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: 136or142 on January 08, 2019, 08:36:07 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


I recognize this, though these economic dislocations are caused by many other factors than free trade.  They include:
1.Technological change
2.Decline of private sector unions
3.Increasing monopsony through non compete clauses.

Trump pays lip service to caring about workers, so he can't even really be called an 'economic nationalist' except for wealthy U.S corporate interests who gain through tariffs.  


Edit: you had mentioned 'pro business nationalism.'  That leads right back to the days when nearly everybody but the nobles were serfs.

If Trump actually cared about workers or workers' rights and unions, he would never have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/supreme-court-backs-employers-over-workers/355923002/

This is the problem that I've referred to before with the Trump/Republican cult: they don't even realize when the rhetoric from Trump and the Congressional Republicans doesn't match what they actually do.  From my perspective, it's hard to have sympathy for people who are actively assisting in slitting their own throat, while also falling for believing that the scapegoats Trump and Congressional Republicans (and Republican governors and State Legislators) throw up to them are the real cause of their problems.


Also, Gordon Ritchie was the Canadian free trade negotiator who referred to Trump as ''appallingly ignorant.''

But you missed my point, if these problems and dislocations had been addressed, at lot of these people would not have turned to Trump. Politics has a way or reshuffling to address the present issues and when some of them are not being addressed, someone will fill that void. You can either decide whether it is a respectable leader or a monster coming to devour your soul.

Yes the rhetoric is not going to match up with the actions (as if that is anything new to politics or a novelty created by Trump), because
1) Trump is incompetent
2) Trump is lazy
3) Congress exists on a previous political paradigm and is thus behind the curve in realizing that change has occurred and finally
4) Big money still reigns supreme and dictates the conversation in the Congress and the politically established types.

This doesn't explain why the same people who voted for Trump also voted for Congressional Republicans who are virtually all Randian anti worker.

Voters aren't the most logical of people.

I think there is 'not the most logical' and there is 'this is absurd.'  If Republican voters were really concerned with 'being exploited by elites', voting for Congressional Republicans clearly falls into the absurd category.

This is from an old T.V Show Cheers. Nick was the ex-husband of Carla, the chief barmaid, and Loretta was his second ex-wife.  For my use of this example, Nick is the Republican Party, and Loretta is the Republican voter, the level to which even I have to think "I don't believe they're just simply that stupid"

Nick: But I really do love you, and I know you love me, and it's crazy for us not to be together.
You're the only woman on Earth for me.

Loretta: How come the cake says "Nick and Diane"?

Nick: Excuse me?

Loretta: Home come the cake says "Nick and Diane?"

Nick: You know what a lousy speller I am.

Loretta: Oh, right....

Loretta: But, wait, that's pretty bad.
This wasn't for me after all, was it? This was for some girl named Diane! No! It's no use.
We're through forever.




Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 08, 2019, 10:09:39 pm
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


I recognize this, though these economic dislocations are caused by many other factors than free trade.  They include:
1.Technological change
2.Decline of private sector unions
3.Increasing monopsony through non compete clauses.

Trump pays lip service to caring about workers, so he can't even really be called an 'economic nationalist' except for wealthy U.S corporate interests who gain through tariffs.  


Edit: you had mentioned 'pro business nationalism.'  That leads right back to the days when nearly everybody but the nobles were serfs.

If Trump actually cared about workers or workers' rights and unions, he would never have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/supreme-court-backs-employers-over-workers/355923002/

This is the problem that I've referred to before with the Trump/Republican cult: they don't even realize when the rhetoric from Trump and the Congressional Republicans doesn't match what they actually do.  From my perspective, it's hard to have sympathy for people who are actively assisting in slitting their own throat, while also falling for believing that the scapegoats Trump and Congressional Republicans (and Republican governors and State Legislators) throw up to them are the real cause of their problems.


Also, Gordon Ritchie was the Canadian free trade negotiator who referred to Trump as ''appallingly ignorant.''

But you missed my point, if these problems and dislocations had been addressed, at lot of these people would not have turned to Trump. Politics has a way or reshuffling to address the present issues and when some of them are not being addressed, someone will fill that void. You can either decide whether it is a respectable leader or a monster coming to devour your soul.

Yes the rhetoric is not going to match up with the actions (as if that is anything new to politics or a novelty created by Trump), because
1) Trump is incompetent
2) Trump is lazy
3) Congress exists on a previous political paradigm and is thus behind the curve in realizing that change has occurred and finally
4) Big money still reigns supreme and dictates the conversation in the Congress and the politically established types.

This doesn't explain why the same people who voted for Trump also voted for Congressional Republicans who are virtually all Randian anti worker.

There wasn't complete overlap for instance Trump outran Republicans in some localities. A good example would be that Trump outperformed Toomey in Scranton, while Toomey did better in the Philly burbs.

Granted these differences were minor relatively and a large number of people who did vote for Republicans also voted for Trump obviously.

Political affiliation is dictated largely by culture and identity. That is why a large number of these people were already Republicans. They became Republicans during the Bush years because of social issues and later on because of the immigration issue and so on. With them already there as Republicans they then had a set of issues that was not being addressed by the established Republican politicians and Trump filled that void while checking all the other boxes on the critical litmus tests (Abortion, guns etc).

Most of my original post was explaining how Trump won the primary relative to the other sixteen Republicans who also sought the nomination.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: 136or142 on January 09, 2019, 12:22:42 am
Most politicians don't adhere to a coherent school of thought. I don't even think we have a definitive list of schools of economic thought. There is overlap everywhere. At best you could say that politicians believe in certain macroeconomic concepts or ideas (when it fits them). Macroeconomics is a lot more abstract than some people think. In advanced macroeconomics you basically learn to solve DSGE models or RCK models :P. Now obviously these models can have policy implications, but it's way more abstract than what most policymakers face.

Nationalist economics, it's the economic thought of right-wing nationalist parties throughout Europe (Le Pen, Wilders, Danish People's Party, The Finns, SD and elements of the AfD

I am specifying nationalist and not populist as the progress party in Norway and UKIP have more traditional economic views.

But all of this is irrelevant because Trump's economic thought is not being put into action (apart from protectionism) due to people in his cabinet.

In what way is Trump's economic thought not being put into action? He quite literally campaigned on large tax cuts and deregulation. He vowed to defend medicare and social security, but I don't think he ever said something on other welfare programs. And his tax plan was even more insane that the tax cut he got through.

While Carlson is critical of swift technological change I also doubt whether he's as ''statist'' as some of these parties can be.

1.Disagree, there is a rough consistency with Democrats to mainstream and heterodox economic schools, there is no consistency on the right.  Part of this inconsistency on the right is due to their intellectual dishonesty: they are Monetarist anti-deficit hawks when a Democrat is President, they are 'deficits don't matter' Modern Monetary Theorists when a Republican is President, part of the inconsistency though is there is no economic school anymore that has answers for mainstream right wing politicians and voters. (Other than plutocracy if you want to consider that an economic school.)

For Democrats,
Liberals like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and Justin Trudeau and others around the world as well) are clearly rough adherents of mainstream neo-classical economics.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders and OAC are clearly rough adherents of Post Keynesian economics.

2.Donald Trump at various times promised everything to almost everybody.  He campaigned on repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a system that was 'cheaper and more comprehensive.'

He also promised major resources to fight the opioid epidemic.  So, he did comment on other social programs.  

He also promised about 4 different tax plans, including a plan that would raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poorest.  His only consistency was that he repudiated at one time or another all his tax plans with the exception of corporate tax cuts.

In regards to some of the deregulation, some of that was pushed by the Republican Congress and not so much by Trump.

There is certainly an old European style economic nationalism to some of Trump's policies in regard to tariffs, but at other times, he has said and acted (for instance with Mexico) that many of the threatened tariffs were just being used as leverage to renegotiate trade deals or to attempt to negotiate trade deals.

On the campaign trail, Trump sometimes said that he didn't oppose free trade agreements, just ones that he 'didn't negotiate personally.'

Of course, tariffs are a form of tax and protectionism is a form of regulation, so he is anti tax in some ways, pro tax in other ways, and for cutting regulations in some ways and for increasing regulations in other ways.  These things need not be contradictory (a candidate could run on a platform, for instance, of lowering some taxes and paying for them by increasing tariffs) but Trump is clearly appallingly ignorant on economics and trade (a former Canadian negotiator with the original free trade agreements said that 'it's not really accurate to call Trump a liar, he's just 'appallingly ignorant'') so, to argue that his views comprise anything approaching an economic school of thought really makes no sense.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a near mercantilist interpretation of trade and how it benefits countries. While Trump isn't one for academic theories yes, and while he has given "lip service to liking trade", it is abundantly clear that Trump views the world has having a finite amount of wealth and that you are either gaining that wealth at the expense of others or you are being screwed out of it. In so doing Trump has rejected the teachings of Ricardo and most subsequent mainstream economists who advocate the principles of comparative advantage and specialization.

Apply it to the real world, we have had a crap ton of people displaced in the name of GDP growth and economic efficiency, by politicians and their esteemed learned economists praying to the alter of creative destruction and specialization. These people have typically received lip service and empty promises of help at best, and at worst a lecture, demeaning put down and admonition to abandon their homes, their families, their churches and their world to seek the much lauded pot of gold on the other side of the mountain.

I experienced this first hand during the early 2000s recession, and my family heeded the advice, only to find that their was no magical good paying jobs over the mason dixon line. I will tell you this, there are times I get angry, there are times I get nostalgic and there are days I want back the life that I would have had if we had not heeded that advice. You can only push people so far, until they they are tired of being starved to death, tired of being left to die on the beaches.

I took micro and macro economics in college, it was one of my favorite courses. But I can tell you this also, it doesn't matter how big the positive feedback loop is in academia, or however many textbooks the mainstream of economists can print to self pleasure each other. At some point, the theories and the policies built off of them have to translate to the people on the ground, because like I said above you can only push people so far. If the mainstream and the establishment fail to address problems, people will look to the extremes to people like Trump and Bernie. If the textbook doesn't provide the answer, one should be little surprised after 30 years of economic torture and economic terrorism that the response of many is to bring out the zippo lighter to it.


I recognize this, though these economic dislocations are caused by many other factors than free trade.  They include:
1.Technological change
2.Decline of private sector unions
3.Increasing monopsony through non compete clauses.

Trump pays lip service to caring about workers, so he can't even really be called an 'economic nationalist' except for wealthy U.S corporate interests who gain through tariffs.  


Edit: you had mentioned 'pro business nationalism.'  That leads right back to the days when nearly everybody but the nobles were serfs.

If Trump actually cared about workers or workers' rights and unions, he would never have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/supreme-court-backs-employers-over-workers/355923002/

This is the problem that I've referred to before with the Trump/Republican cult: they don't even realize when the rhetoric from Trump and the Congressional Republicans doesn't match what they actually do.  From my perspective, it's hard to have sympathy for people who are actively assisting in slitting their own throat, while also falling for believing that the scapegoats Trump and Congressional Republicans (and Republican governors and State Legislators) throw up to them are the real cause of their problems.


Also, Gordon Ritchie was the Canadian free trade negotiator who referred to Trump as ''appallingly ignorant.''

But you missed my point, if these problems and dislocations had been addressed, at lot of these people would not have turned to Trump. Politics has a way or reshuffling to address the present issues and when some of them are not being addressed, someone will fill that void. You can either decide whether it is a respectable leader or a monster coming to devour your soul.

Yes the rhetoric is not going to match up with the actions (as if that is anything new to politics or a novelty created by Trump), because
1) Trump is incompetent
2) Trump is lazy
3) Congress exists on a previous political paradigm and is thus behind the curve in realizing that change has occurred and finally
4) Big money still reigns supreme and dictates the conversation in the Congress and the politically established types.

This doesn't explain why the same people who voted for Trump also voted for Congressional Republicans who are virtually all Randian anti worker.

There wasn't complete overlap for instance Trump outran Republicans in some localities. A good example would be that Trump outperformed Toomey in Scranton, while Toomey did better in the Philly burbs.

Granted these differences were minor relatively and a large number of people who did vote for Republicans also voted for Trump obviously.

Political affiliation is dictated largely by culture and identity. That is why a large number of these people were already Republicans. They became Republicans during the Bush years because of social issues and later on because of the immigration issue and so on. With them already there as Republicans they then had a set of issues that was not being addressed by the established Republican politicians and Trump filled that void while checking all the other boxes on the critical litmus tests (Abortion, guns etc).

Most of my original post was explaining how Trump won the primary relative to the other sixteen Republicans who also sought the nomination.

But, it still leaves that they voted for Trump and the Congressional Republicans even though many of Trump's economic policies on the campaign trail (to the degree they were in any way coherent) were in complete contradiction of the Congressional Republican actual policy.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: mvd10 on January 18, 2019, 09:24:10 am
I'm not really an expert on this, but I mainly lump everything in 3 macroeconomic schools. New Classical, New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian (probably the closest to Keynes himself).

New Classical macroeconomists think that consumers and producers are fully rational and always optimize their utility. Real Business Cycle theory is an example of this. In the RBC models there are no sticky wages or prices. Monetary policy is irrelevant because wages and prices quickly adjust and fiscal policy is irrelevant because people anticipate the government's budget constraint (a deficit now should mean a surplus later technically). Recessions are caused by productivity shocks and technology shocks. If unemployment is high during a recession this is efficient because people choose to work less because of lower productivity and therefore lower wages, if unemployment is low during a boom period this is efficient because people choose to work more because of higher productivity and wages. According to this theory markets always clear and the allocation of goods always is optimal, so the government should not stimulate demand during recessions. This isn't a very common view btw (and even though it has its merits I don't really believe it myself, too many unrealistic assumptions), but it's still relatively mainstream. The problem with this theory is that it relies on strange exogeneous technology shocks. When you ask a RBC theorist what these technology shocks are they often don't really have a good answer and I don't really think we can explain recent recessions with these ''technology shocks''.

With this view I guess you could somewhat defend Republican deficit hypocrisy (opposing stimulus because of the deficit while support deficit-busting tax cuts). If people are fully rational they'd know that a $800bn stimulus program will mean future taxes. In the worst case people just save the additional $800bn in order to pay the future expected taxes, so no change in consumption. Meanwhile Trump's tax cuts were meant to make the tax code more attractive towards saving and investment. It blow a huge hole in the deficit so technically it should drain private investment and undermine the goals of the tax cuts. But again, people could anticipate the future tax increase and save an amount of money proportional to the size of the tax cut, therefore meaning that the deficit won't drain private investment (in a closed economy investment is savings minus government deficit, the deficit increases but savings increase by the same because people anticipate higher future taxes and investment doesn't change, meanwhile the tax code is more favourable to savings so people might even save more and investment further increases). Now there are a lot of ifs and buts and it's not a widely shared view, but I guess this is the sole economic rationale for Republican hypocrisy (again, I'm not convinced myself).

New Keynesian macroeconomics basically takes New Classical models and adds some market failures. Wages and prices do not longer immediately adjust, so monetary policy is relevant (if wages don't immediately adjust a monetary expansion would get unemployment down before workers start demanding more wages and unemploymeny goes back to the natural rate). The difference between New Keynesianism and old Keynesianism/post-Keynesianism is that New Keynesianism is more dynamic (they acknowledge that you can't ''micromanage'' the entire economy because it consists out of people who generally have rational expectations and mostly adjust their behaviour when the government does something) while the difference between New Keynesians and New Classical macroeconomists is that New Keynesians don't make extremely rosy assumptions about markets being always perfect. The vast majority of mainstream macroeconomists probably is New Keynesian tbh.

I don't know a lot about post-Keynesians tbh. I guess they're the closest to Keynes' original work and they probably are the most sceptical about the ability of markets to adjust and the inherent stability of markets?

Feel free to try to get Trump in a coherent economic school lol. Most politicians have a certain worldview that involves way more than just economics and then they go on to form their economic viewpoints based on their worldview.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: 136or142 on January 18, 2019, 08:46:31 pm


Feel free to try to get Trump in a coherent economic school lol. Most politicians have a certain worldview that involves way more than just economics and then they go on to form their economic viewpoints based on their worldview.

Trump's economic school is the equivalent of Trump University.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: 136or142 on January 18, 2019, 09:45:54 pm
New Classical macroeconomists think that consumers and producers are fully rational and always optimize their utility. Real Business Cycle theory is an example of this. In the RBC models there are no sticky wages or prices. Monetary policy is irrelevant because wages and prices quickly adjust and fiscal policy is irrelevant because people anticipate the government's budget constraint (a deficit now should mean a surplus later technically). Recessions are caused by productivity shocks and technology shocks. If unemployment is high during a recession this is efficient because people choose to work less because of lower productivity and therefore lower wages, if unemployment is low during a boom period this is efficient because people choose to work more because of higher productivity and wages. According to this theory markets always clear and the allocation of goods always is optimal, so the government should not stimulate demand during recessions. This isn't a very common view btw (and even though it has its merits I don't really believe it myself, too many unrealistic assumptions), but it's still relatively mainstream. The problem with this theory is that it relies on strange exogeneous technology shocks. When you ask a RBC theorist what these technology shocks are they often don't really have a good answer and I don't really think we can explain recent recessions with these ''technology shocks''.

As a minor point, it's called NeoClassical economics.  You are correct that neoclassical economics is a hybrid of classical economics, Monetarist economics and Keynesian economics, however I strongly disagree that those are mainstream views in neoclassical economic theory.

1.As to people being 'fully rational' the reason why the favored inflation rate (of the Federal Reserve) is 2% a year and not zero is precisely because there is an expectation that people aren't fully rational.  Neoclassical economics embraces Keynes' notion of 'wage stickiness' and argues that an inflation rate of 2% allows a struggling firm a few years of offering 0% wage increases before their workers fully appreciate that a 0% wage increase with 2% inflation means a reduction in real wages.

The ability for a struggling firm to do this is contrasted with the difficulty of a zero inflation situation and the firm asking its workers to take a 2% wage reduction.  Of course, in reality, there is no difference between the two, but it is generally accepted by most neoclassical economists that psychological workers feel much more comfortable with not having their dollar wages reduced.

2.I've never read any neoclassical economist claim that recessions are caused by productivity or technology shocks. The arguments from them is that the 2000 recession and the 2008 'Great Recession' were caused by the bursting of asset bubbles.

The 2008 'Great Recession' was presaged by a much smaller recession in 2007 due to rising oil prices that led to increases in inflation (CPI) that led to higher interest rates. However, that would have been a mild recession (most people weren't even aware there was a recession in 2007) had it not been for the higher interest rates causing massive defaults on mortgages as a result of the financial fraud.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For anybody wondering, there is no contradiction between my assertion at the top that the Federal Reserve works to keep inflation at 2% per annum, and my later comment that (persistent) inflation in 2007 resulted from an increase in oil prices. 

The ability of the Federal Reserve to keep inflation at around 2% per annum is based on Monetarist Theory that is based on its interpretation of the Long Run Phillips Curve.  It argues that inflation in the long run can only occur if it is accommodated by central bank 'easy money' policy, it makes no argument about inflation in the short term.

I should probably look up the numbers, but in a few months over 2006 and 2007 the price of WTI oil went from something like $30 a barrel to $140 a barrel.  The Federal Reserve policy was already accommodative as well as the Fed Rate dropped to something like 0.25% following September 11, 2001 and was still quite low relative to inflation in 2007.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Gustaf on January 21, 2019, 10:03:26 am
Yeah, I don't Think Trump has a "school of thought". He wants to enrich himself and beyond that holds illiterate positions (e.g. opposing free trade because he doesn't understand how trade works).


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Insomnian on February 15, 2019, 02:15:36 pm
Yeah, those protectionist, nationalistic, vaguely enterprise-friendly Republicans are incomprehensible.

Just what the hell is Abraham Lincoln's school of economic thought?


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Big Abraham on February 17, 2019, 12:22:02 am
Yeah, those protectionist, nationalistic, vaguely enterprise-friendly Republicans are incomprehensible.

Just what the hell is Abraham Lincoln's school of economic thought?

American School. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)) High protective tariffs and subsidies coupled with internal improvements. Basically the same economic philosophy as Clay and, earlier, Hamilton.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Insomnian on February 17, 2019, 12:32:01 am
Yeah, those protectionist, nationalistic, vaguely enterprise-friendly Republicans are incomprehensible.

Just what the hell is Abraham Lincoln's school of economic thought?

American School. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)) High protective tariffs and subsidies coupled with internal improvements. Basically the same economic philosophy as Clay and, earlier, Hamilton.

Oh yeah, 100% in agreement. That's the correct answer to my sarcastic, rhetorical question. Which I actually thank you for posting, since I'm not sure people actually would all know about this.

I'd also like to note Trump loves "infrastructure" too. Makes it amusing when people call him a Jacksonian, because Andrew Jackson would HATE him.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Big Abraham on February 17, 2019, 12:57:44 am
Yeah, those protectionist, nationalistic, vaguely enterprise-friendly Republicans are incomprehensible.

Just what the hell is Abraham Lincoln's school of economic thought?

American School. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)) High protective tariffs and subsidies coupled with internal improvements. Basically the same economic philosophy as Clay and, earlier, Hamilton.

Oh yeah, 100% in agreement. That's the correct answer to my sarcastic, rhetorical question. Which I actually thank you for posting, since I'm not sure people actually would all know about this.

I'd also like to note Trump loves "infrastructure" too. Makes it amusing when people call him a Jacksonian, because Andrew Jackson would HATE him.

After reading your post the second time over I now see the sarcasm. I'm pretty bad when it comes to detecting it over text, so my bad

The comparison between Jackson and Trump was always superficial and mostly based on the fact that they both ran "populist" campaigns championing the "common man" over "the elites". Any resemblance ends there


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 23, 2019, 02:36:37 am
Yeah, those protectionist, nationalistic, vaguely enterprise-friendly Republicans are incomprehensible.

Just what the hell is Abraham Lincoln's school of economic thought?

American School. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)) High protective tariffs and subsidies coupled with internal improvements. Basically the same economic philosophy as Clay and, earlier, Hamilton.

Oh yeah, 100% in agreement. That's the correct answer to my sarcastic, rhetorical question. Which I actually thank you for posting, since I'm not sure people actually would all know about this.

I'd also like to note Trump loves "infrastructure" too. Makes it amusing when people call him a Jacksonian, because Andrew Jackson would HATE him.

After reading your post the second time over I now see the sarcasm. I'm pretty bad when it comes to detecting it over text, so my bad

The comparison between Jackson and Trump was always superficial and mostly based on the fact that they both ran "populist" campaigns championing the "common man" over "the elites". Any resemblance ends there

Elites used to be nationalist and hierarchical conservative, whereas the common man was individualistic, egalitarian and classically liberal (to an extent).


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Gravelanche on February 23, 2019, 04:21:32 pm
This thread is a sign of how pervasive and successful the media’s attempt to redefine ‘traditional conservatism’ to include being staunchly pro-free trade etc. has been.


Title: Re: Just What The Hell Is Trump & Tucker Carlson's School Of Economic Thought?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 23, 2019, 10:54:05 pm
This thread is a sign of how pervasive and successful the media’s attempt to redefine ‘traditional conservatism’ to include being staunchly pro-free trade etc. has been.

Protectionism is historically a conservative position.

Not just the media, but academia as well.