Donald Trump So Far

[WinePusher]

1) Cabinet appointments have been very encouraging, particularly his EPA nominee who will assuredly gut the agency and his HHS secretary who will dismantle Obamacare.

2) Trump's unwillingness to sever ties with his business is very troubling, as is his decision to engage in blatant nepotism by having his children become so involved in the transition. His desire to retain his executive producer position on the Apprentice is pitiful and abnormal.

3) Carrier deal was stupid. However, Trump's deal with the Japanese firm Softbank to bring in about 50 billion dollars of foreign direct investment seems very promising. Looks like Trump is a semi decent deal maker.

4) Trump's response to the Russian hacking is disingenuous, but I don't care. Russia interfered to screw Clinton and help Trump, and everyone knows this INCLUDING Trump. So for Trump to say otherwise is a lie. But personally speaking, I don't care that Russia interfered since they did us a great public service by exposing the DNC.

5) Recount efforts in Wisconsin were laughable, as is Jill Stein and John Podesta. Efforts to sway members of the electoral college from red states to vote against Trump seem desperate, but understandable. If this ever were to happen and if Trump is denied the presidency because of defiant red state electors then there will surely be another bloody civil war, with gun clinging uneducated red necks being the instigators.

Question: What is your assessment of President Elect Trump so far?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

Dept. of Energy was a dumb pick as well as Sec. Of State. If you want to gut the EPA picking someone who is currently involved in litigation might not have been a smart pick. Nor do I care for Sarah Palin being rumored to be in Charge of the VA. Ben Carson seems like a boneheaded pick as well.

I think someone like John Huntsman would have been a great Secretary Of State pick but he wasn't even considered. There were rumors of Alan Mullaly for the position as well which would have been a fine choice.

It seems most of his picks though have no experience with the jobs the are assigned to. Has Sarah Palin run a hospital or insurance agency? The only foreign policy experience of his Secretary of State is getting oil drilling permits. Ben Carson literally has 0 related experience to Urban development.

I do like the Secretary of Defense pick though, although I am cautious of someone so brazenly advocating another War. He is a general though so that sorta goes with the territory.

[Divine Insight]

1) Cabinet appointments have been very encouraging, particularly his EPA nominee who will assuredly gut the agency.

Why would anyone want the EPA to be gutted?

Unless you're a fan of breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water I can't imagine why you would want the EPA to be gutted.

Putting someone in charge of the EPA who doesn't care about protecting our environment and doesn't believe that Climate Change is real is ludicrous. I would personally even call it an act of treason. Not only treason against the United States, but treason against the entire global community and all of humanity.

I can't believe that anyone would support gutting the EPA.

2) Trump's unwillingness to sever ties with his business is very troubling,

It's not only troubling it's also illegal and for good reasons. Trump is apparently going to use the USA as his personal toy to help him become the world's riches individual in all of history. He appears to not care about laws or the U.S. Constitution at all. Half of Americans have basically just elected a criminal thug as our next president.

3) Carrier deal was stupid.

Not only was it stupid but it was a slap in the face of American companies who aren't planning on moving Jobs out of the country. Trump has just rewarded an unpatriotic traitor company whilst doing nothing to reward the patriotic companies.

It was an extremely stupid deal. And an insult to decent companies.

Trump then ultimately blames the workers and their union for these problems anyway.

4) Trump's response to the Russian hacking is disingenuous, but I don't care. Russia interfered to screw Clinton and help Trump, and everyone knows this INCLUDING Trump. So for Trump to say otherwise is a lie. But personally speaking, I don't care that Russia interfered since they did us a great public service by exposing the DNC.

The problem is, why would Putin want Trump to become president of the USA? Could it be that they were in cahoots before hand. We may have just witness Russia conquering the entire USA without having to fire a single shot. They now have their puppet Mr, Trump in charge of our entire government including commander in chief of the military.

The USA may have just fallen to Russian control. Trump seems to be very much in love with Putin.

5) Recount efforts in Wisconsin were laughable, as is Jill Stein and John Podesta. Efforts to sway members of the electoral college from red states to vote against Trump seem desperate, but understandable. If this ever were to happen and if Trump is denied the presidency because of defiant red state electors then there will surely be another bloody civil war, with gun clinging uneducated red necks being the instigators.

Yep, there does seem to be an awful lot of blind Americans who seem to think that Trump is somehow good for them. They will soon discover that the joke is on them.

And think of how utterly absurd this is. When this election began it was clearly that BOTH Trump and Hillary were the most undesirable[/i] and disliked candidates to run for the presidency. In fact, Hillary was actually slightly more favorable overall. But neither were "liked".

But now that Trump has won the "Trump supporters" are acting like he is the greatest gift from God ever sent their way. What a CHANGE in opinion that was!

They will soon discover that a Trump presidency isn't going to produce the results they are hoping for. Especially when they suddenly realize that their environment isn't being protected anymore and they start choking on smog and drinking water that has been contaminated with toxins by the deregulated industries around them.

Yep, he might even succeed in creating tons of jobs. But don't forget to wear a gas mask on the way to work. And be prepared to accept low wages and have your unions blamed for any problems with the economy.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

The EPAis largely ineffective though. As an institution it also absolves criminal liability on the part of violators by setting up a system of fines etc. You have a chemical leak that causes cancer no one faces criminal charges and they pay very small fines.

Just look at the EPAs handling of the BP oil spill, Flint water crisis, Colorado river spill, etc. You think the EPA protects you, but it really doesn't. State level regulations do more to keep polluters at bay than the EPA.

Personally I would fold the EPA into a branch of the FBI and criminalize negligent acts resulting in damage to communities and/or individuals.

[Divine Insight]

State level regulations do more to keep polluters at bay than the EPA.

Well let's hope the state level protection of our environment survives a Trump administration.

Trump's idea to get the economy going is to lift regulations on the coal, steel, and fossil fuel industries. How's that going to work if he can't get past the state-level regulations?

He's promised to bring back the coal, steel, automotive and fossil fuel industries to the blue collar workers of Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

I'll believe that when I see it. In fact these are the people who gave him the electoral college victory than won him the presidency.

And the truth of the matter is that even if he succeeded in deregulating the coal, steel, automotive and fossil fuel industries this wouldn't result in putting those blue collar workers back to work anyway. All of these industries are highly automated now and use robotic and automated machinery to do the bulk of what the blue collar workers used to do anyway.

So what's most likely to happen is that these unemployed blue collar workers in these states are going to end up watching as brand new deregulated automated steel mills, coal mines, automotive and fossil fuel industries will be springing up in their local towns.

They will still be unemployed as these brand new automated companies won't need their manual labor. So they'll be able to look out their window through the smog to see these brand new polluting industries that have no jobs available for them.

And somehow Trump will come out of this looking like a HERO whilst the disgruntled unemployed blue collar workers will be choking on the pollution and still be unemployed. But they won't be able to complain because Trump will have delivered his promise to bring back their industries.

He'll probably then just blame the unemployed workers for not being willing to work for less than what it costs these companies to use robots.

I think Trump is still living in the 1950's in his mind. He doesn't seem to realize that blue collar jobs just aren't in demand anymore, even if he deregulates industries.

He seems to think that if he deregulates industry everything will just return to being like an episode of Happy Days.

He's not living in today's reality. He's living in his own imagined reality that simply doesn't exist in the real world.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

rump's idea to get the economy going is to lift regulations on the coal, steel, and fossil fuel industries. How's that going to work if he can't get past the state-level regulations?

It won't

He's promised to bring back the coal, steel, automotive and fossil fuel industries to the blue collar workers of Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

They got scammed.

[WinePusher]

Why would anyone want the EPA to be gutted?

Cause a lot of people are smart.

Unless you're a fan of breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water I can't imagine why you would want the EPA to be gutted.

But it's completely crazy, insane and ill informed to believe that we'd be breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water without the EPA. Can't you understand that? Haven't you read anything about environmental economics?

Putting someone in charge of the EPA who doesn't care about protecting our environment and doesn't believe that Climate Change is real is ludicrous.

Nah, it's pretty brilliant. Instead of out rightly trying to abolish the EPA, which would be to time consuming, Trump appoints someone who will destroy the EPA from within. You guys lost, elections have consequences, bye bye EPA

I would personally even call it an act of treason.

Oh, well you should look up what the word "treason" means in the dictionary.

I can't believe that anyone would support gutting the EPA.

Darn.

They will soon discover that a Trump presidency isn't going to produce the results they are hoping for. Especially when they suddenly realize that their environment isn't being protected anymore and they start choking on smog and drinking water that has been contaminated with toxins by the deregulated industries around them.

Really, seriously, honestly, how hard is it to make sure your opinions are informed by facts? Are you willing to learn about environmental policy and environmental economics or are you content in clinging to these misinformed opinions of yours? Can you even define what an externality is or what a public good is?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]


"The USA may have just fallen to Russian control. Trump seems to be very much in love with Putin. "

Two decent guys hopefully make this world a friendlier place.

[help3434]

Can you even define what an externality is or what a public good is?

I don't have a degree in Economics but I did get an A- in the one Economics class I took in college. I remember what externalities are, and I am mystified you would bring up the term after arguing against regulation because they are a major reason for regulation. Externalities are a form of market failure where a good or service has effects external to a transaction that is, it has effects outside the costs of producing and outside of buying and consuming it. A negative externality is an externality where there is a cost, or harmful affect on people outside of the transaction. Without outside intervention such as government regulation producers produce too much because their costs are too low. Pollution is a prime example of an external cost, and so we need the EPA to penalize those who break environmental regulations or else pollution will be unchecked.

A public good is also an externality. Something is a public good if it is not possible to exclude people who don't pay for it from its benefits. Without intervention into the market such as government subsidies or funding there is a market failure because too little of the public good is produced.

[WinePusher]

Can you even define what an externality is or what a public good is?

I don't have a degree in Economics but I did get an A- in the one Economics class I took in college. I remember what externalities are, and I am mystified you would bring up the term after arguing against regulation because they are a major reason for regulation. Externalities are a form of market failure where a good or service has effects external to a transaction that is, it has effects outside the costs of producing and outside of buying and consuming it. A negative externality is an externality where there is a cost, or harmful affect on people outside of the transaction. Without outside intervention such as government regulation producers produce too much because their costs are too low. Pollution is a prime example of an external cost, and so we need the EPA to penalize those who break environmental regulations or else pollution will be unchecked.

To say that the existence of negative externalities is "a reason for regulation" isn't really accurate. Yes, a significant amount of economists believe that negative externalities can be corrected with an optimal Pigovian tax that reconciles private marginal costs incurred by the producer and social marginal costs incurred by un-involved third parties. However, as every economist knows, and as every student of economics learns, AND as Pigou himself confessed, it is impossible to know what the optimal tax rate should be.

For a Pigovian tax to be optimal, it must fully incorporate the marginal harm inflicted on society that is the result of the production of a particular good. To compute marginal harm, we must know what the optimal level of pollution is, that is the level of pollution that is no longer tolerable. We don't know this, we can't know this, and as such it is impossible for policymakers to optimally set Pigovian taxes. Pigovian taxes that are NOT optimal, that do not accurately reflect social marginal costs, do NOT improve social welfare. This is why it's realistically impossible to incorporate Pigovian taxation into general equilibrium models.

A much more practical and realistic approach to dealing with externalities came from Ronald Coase, who undermined alot of what Pigou said. Coase's analysis was based purely on mutual exchange and bargaining, no "government intervention" needed.

A public good is also an externality. Something is a public good if it is not possible to exclude people who don't pay for it from its benefits. Without intervention into the market such as government subsidies or funding there is a market failure because too little of the public good is produced.

Yes, I agree that the government should provide public goods, namely national defense. If you think public education and public healthcare are "public goods" then you need to carefully look at the definition again.