Economists savage Trump's economic agenda

a reply to: greencmp

I think I half agree with you and half agree with Aazadan. Separating politics from economics is a fools errand and Austrian economists are overwhelmingly right wing libertarian (not right wing conservative). The question is are they libertarians because they are believe in the Austrian model or do they believe in Austrian economics as they are Libertarian.

Heterodox economics schools such as Austrian, Institutionalist and MMT have a lot more in common with each other methodologically than Orthodox economics, despite that they reach very different conclusions and policy prescriptions.

Politicians try to present economics as a hard science with definite answers which leads people to doubt anything economics says when it gets it wrong. A degree more honesty in discussing possible outcomes and framing which questions are ultimately political judgements rather than economic ones would be helpful.

a reply to: Aazadan

Vodoo is a bit harsh. The fault lies mainly with politicians who try to prevent economic theories that suit their agenda as hard science. ( I will admit some more strident economists don't help and it tends to be these ones who get the media attention).

Even if there was a single all encompassing and accurate theory of economics it still shouldn't be treated as a strictly predictive science, as there is no way of ever knowing all the variables and weighting to give them.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: matafuchs

Mmm...

Newsmax....en.wikipedia.org...

Newsmax Media, commonly called Newsmax, is a conservative[1] American news media organization founded by Christopher Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. It operates the news website Newsmax.com, publishes the Franklin Prosperity Report and Newsmax magazine, and runs a conservative cable news channel Newsmax TV.

So ..... no.

Try again. (World Net Daily is also disqualified). (Also Fox News, Infowars,, TheBlaze, Rush Limbaugh, the 700 club......all of them - not real news.)

I see, so disqualify sources that disagree with your views? Which sources are not discounted?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
Hmmm. Do you think that economists are immune to political bias?

Do you think it is possible that Trump's detractors might be trying to weaken him by having economist buddies rubbish his plan? I am not saying that is what has happened but I don't rule it out. Do you? If so, why? What counter arguments are you making, or do you just take this at face value because an economist said it?

Are there any economists that support Trumps proposals?
Have you checked?

Is there a formula for economics that allow a grade to be applied, a good vs bad proposal? If so, why have we not created a perfect economy?

Your arguments are not balanced and therefore it just reads like a Trump hit piece that could be read on many MSM outlets.

Well common sense counts doesn't it?

On deporting 11 Million people when the unemployment rate is near 5%...so you think that will have an impact? How?

Lets just look at a microcosm of that plan...

in 2010/2011 Georgia decided they would lead the way on cracking down on illegal immigration...

can you guess what the economic consequences were?

Georgia’s New Immigration Law Leading To Crops Rotting In Farmers’ Fields
www.outsidethebeltway.com...

Georgia's Harsh Immigration Law Costs Millions in Unharvested Crops
www.theatlantic.com...

The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Georgia's Immigration Law Backfires

labor shortages triggered an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses, as crops rotted in the fields,

..

The labor shortages, which also have affected the hotel and restaurant industries, are a consequence of Georgia’s immigration enforcement law, HB 87, which was passed last year.

..

The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that some 425,000 illegal immigrants lived in Georgia when the legislation was passed – seventh highest in the nation. Those numbers are now down, as hoped for, but the state’s economy is paying a heavy price.

...

Despite high unemployment in the state, most Georgians don’t want such back-breaking jobs, nor do they have the necessary skills. According to Dick Minor, president of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Grower’s Association, immigrants “are pretty much professional harvesters” with many specializing in particular crops.

..

Georgia’s experience is consistent with economic research on immigration. Although many Americans believe immigrants “steal” our jobs and push down our wages, economists find little evidence of that.

www.forbes.com...

In the end...when challenges to the new Georgia Immigration Crackdown laws came up..the State GOP chose not to defend the laws, letting the courts strike down large swaths of it. They also chose to not enforce what remains of the crackdown laws and the Georgia farm community has almost recovered.

The bigger issue might be why illegals are the only people who will farm the fields... We have a similar situation in the UK where many service jobs are taken by foreigners but by and large they are not illegals. We ave a shortage of resources to do those jobs, so legally bringing in immigrants is a sensible thing to do.
It makes sense to me that gaps in supply are identified and the right resources are brought in from abroad if necessary. Relying on illegal immigrants to prop up an industry seems short sighted to me.

Also I do not believe that Trumps plan is to deport 11m people so I am unclear where you got that from. I understood his plan was to deport 11m and then let back in the vast majority through a legal process. In practice that probably does involve some form of amnesty where illegals can come forward and apply to enter the country on a working visa. i doubt they would actually leave the country, rather report and enter a process for legal immigration. If they were doing a vital job to the US economy then I suspect they will be allowed to stay. Of course those refusing to report would be deported without further opportunity.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp

I think I half agree with you and half agree with Aazadan. Separating politics from economics is a fools errand and Austrian economists are overwhelmingly right wing libertarian (not right wing conservative). The question is are they libertarians because they are believe in the Austrian model or do they believe in Austrian economics as they are Libertarian.

Heterodox economics schools such as Austrian, Institutionalist and MMT have a lot more in common with each other methodologically than Orthodox economics, despite that they reach very different conclusions and policy prescriptions.

Politicians try to present economics as a hard science with definite answers which leads people to doubt anything economics says when it gets it wrong. A degree more honesty in discussing possible outcomes and framing which questions are ultimately political judgements rather than economic ones would be helpful.

I would still consider institutionalists and chartelists political as they both focus on government policy.

I do agree with the sentiment though. Strictly speaking, the absence of an interventionist policy is no less of a political position.

Much damage has been done to the field of economics by presenting it as a quasi-empirical science.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Heterodox economics schools such as Austrian, Institutionalist and MMT have a lot more in common with each other methodologically than Orthodox economics, despite that they reach very different conclusions and policy prescriptions.

Politicians try to present economics as a hard science with definite answers which leads people to doubt anything economics says when it gets it wrong. A degree more honesty in discussing possible outcomes and framing which questions are ultimately political judgements rather than economic ones would be helpful.

The difference is in the premises. The Austrians start with individual choice, which is derived from the theory of marginal utility. In marginal utility, the first item is valued higher than subsequent items. There is no magnitude, just ordination. All human activity is choosing one thing from a list of all possible things. That is what humans do all day their whole life. No matter how big and complex the economy, the individuals make each choice that adds up the total market.

Institutionalists and MMT assume a market and proceed from there. Economics is about the market forces, elements, and phenomena; not so much on how to control the economy directly, which I suppose should be called Political Economics.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If these 'economists' were that knowlegable we wouldn't have recessions, depressions or inflation.

Trump scares the pants off of the puppet masters and they ae telling their economists to make up what ever scary lie they think the sheep might still believe.

originally posted by: VforVendettea
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If these 'economists' were that knowlegable we wouldn't have recessions, depressions or inflation.

Trump scares the pants off of the puppet masters and they ae telling their economists to make up what ever scary lie they think the sheep might still believe.

Actually, we would. They're a corrective force that happens when the market is overvalued. Growth only happens at the cost of a drop in the future.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

At the risk of delving into the technical and off topic both Austrian economics and main stream economics use marginal utility the difference is in whether it is cardinal or ordinal. Austrians believe it is ordinal as you correctly point out and I would tend to agree in this case.

Orthodox economists would probably counter that it does not matter anyway as marginal utility does not require it to be either to be true, I would probably agree with this also.

Where I would group Austrian economics together with MMT and Institutionalist is not obviously in policy or politics but in that they attempt to describe economics as it is , inclusive of the realities of social interactions, uncertainty and human behaviour. I think that Veblens description of orthodox economics treating people as "homogenous globule of desire" should probably ring true with Austrians.