Donald Trump's Economic Policy

[PaxRyana]

I've been watching Stefan's videos on the Don for a while. I've watched every one of them and I can say I now put my full support behind Mr. Trump. I think it's safe to say that I can defend him on most any of his foreign/domestic policies and defend him from the media lies that surround him. However, I can't seem to find any empirical sources to defend his economic policies. I'd like to be able to stump my friends who denounce his economic plans, but Stefan has never directly addressed his economic ideas. Can anyone help?

[dsayers]

If he says his economic plans are X, Y, and Z and he doesn't do them, what then? How much can the president do on his own? Is it righteous for one person to be in control of the money everybody's forced to use?

[12StringSamurai]

"Is it righteous for one person to be in control of the money everybody's forced to use?"

 

Of course not, but I think this is a situation where the perfect is the enemy of the good. I dont want to elect anybody, but Anarchy isn't on the ballot.

 

If this were a typical election with a Republican Establishment candidate I probably wouldn't even bother to vote, but Trump seems like he might be a genuine outsider who sees how the oligarchs are destroying Western Civilization. If he manages to survive and win, he might buy us some time to convince people of the true nature of state power before everything goes completely sideways.

 

It's an opportunity to maybe stop or at least slow the Left's attempt to import more of their permanent underclass voting block.

 

There are times to stand on principle and there's times where you just fight to stay alive a little longer.

"Can anyone help?"

 

Can you be specific? What policies are you having trouble defending? I'll try to help.

[Somewhere]

Specifically on tariffs, there's a blog post by Criton Zoakos:

"There is overwhelming historical evidence that links protectionism with rapid growth, especially in US economic history"

https://letopostscripts.net/2016/05/16/myths-of-free-trade-and-protectionism/

 

New Zealand had a highly protectionist economy in the 1950s and 1960s and it thrived.

 

But I'd want to know a lot more to be persuaded. As with epidemiological studies in medicine, there are so many confounding factors to be considered.

[dsayers]

I dont want to elect anybody, but Anarchy isn't on the ballot.

The implication being that you HAVE to vote. But you don't. You don't see anarchy on the ballot because you're looking at the ballot. If you were free in your own mind, you wouldn't be concerning yourself with the Mafia's policies beyond that which is necessary for self-preservation.

 

If he manages to survive and win, he might buy us some time to convince people of the true nature of state power before everything goes completely sideways.

The dollar has been dead for a while now. It only looks alive because of all the rigging they're doing to make it twitch.

 

It's an opportunity to maybe stop or at least slow the Left's attempt to import more of their permanent underclass voting block.

Pro-longing fantasy does nothing to help the junkie. Sometimes you have to let them crash so that you can ACTUALLY rebuild.

 

There are times to stand on principle and there's times where you just fight to stay alive a little longer.

There's never a time where pretending 2+2=5 is beneficial. Your willingness to compromise is why they're still here in the first place.

[Will Torbald]

 

I dont want to elect anybody, but Anarchy isn't on the ballot.

The implication being that you HAVE to vote. But you don't. You don't see anarchy on the ballot because you're looking at the ballot. If you were free in your own mind, you wouldn't be concerning yourself with the Mafia's policies beyond that which is necessary for self-preservation.

 

If he manages to survive and win, he might buy us some time to convince people of the true nature of state power before everything goes completely sideways.

The dollar has been dead for a while now. It only looks alive because of all the rigging they're doing to make it twitch.

 

It's an opportunity to maybe stop or at least slow the Left's attempt to import more of their permanent underclass voting block.

Pro-longing fantasy does nothing to help the junkie. Sometimes you have to let them crash so that you can ACTUALLY rebuild.

 

There are times to stand on principle and there's times where you just fight to stay alive a little longer.

There's never a time where pretending 2+2=5 is beneficial. Your willingness to compromise is why they're still here in the first place.

 

 

The result of not voting is enabling the most mainstream candidate to win. Congratulations, your inactions elected Hillary Clinton.

[dsayers]

your inactions elected

As always, inaction does not equal action. Also, there is a false premise here that votes matter. Finally, you have deflected and not addressed anything I've said. A little integrity please. You know I won't be distracted by anything less.

[Will Torbald]

As always, inaction does not equal action. Also, there is a false premise here that votes matter. Finally, you have deflected and not addressed anything I've said. A little integrity please. You know I won't be distracted by anything less.

 

Inaction that enables is just as culpable. Big difference. If you do nothing to stop a disaster you allow it to happen. Even if your singular vote doesn't stop it, you are tacitly accepting it.

[dsayers]

If you do nothing to stop a disaster you allow it to happen.

No. You have to ACTIVELY contribute to a disaster in order to be responsible for it. You're arguing X = -X and this is in violation of first principles. You are wrong. The irony is that telling people they have to legitimize slavery makes you more culpable than you claim those who do nothing are.

 

Of all the things you could be doing right now, you're not doing all of them minus one. Does this mean you're responsible for infinite disasters each passing moment? Surely you jest.

[PaxRyana]

"Is it righteous for one person to be in control of the money everybody's forced to use?"

 

Of course not, but I think this is a situation where the perfect is the enemy of the good. I dont want to elect anybody, but Anarchy isn't on the ballot.

 

If this were a typical election with a Republican Establishment candidate I probably wouldn't even bother to vote, but Trump seems like he might be a genuine outsider who sees how the oligarchs are destroying Western Civilization. If he manages to survive and win, he might buy us some time to convince people of the true nature of state power before everything goes completely sideways.

 

It's an opportunity to maybe stop or at least slow the Left's attempt to import more of their permanent underclass voting block.

 

There are times to stand on principle and there's times where you just fight to stay alive a little longer.

"Can anyone help?"

 

Can you be specific? What policies are you having trouble defending? I'll try to help.

[PaxRyana]

"Is it righteous for one person to be in control of the money everybody's forced to use?"

 

Of course not, but I think this is a situation where the perfect is the enemy of the good. I dont want to elect anybody, but Anarchy isn't on the ballot.

 

If this were a typical election with a Republican Establishment candidate I probably wouldn't even bother to vote, but Trump seems like he might be a genuine outsider who sees how the oligarchs are destroying Western Civilization. If he manages to survive and win, he might buy us some time to convince people of the true nature of state power before everything goes completely sideways.

 

It's an opportunity to maybe stop or at least slow the Left's attempt to import more of their permanent underclass voting block.

 

There are times to stand on principle and there's times where you just fight to stay alive a little longer.

"Can anyone help?"

 

Can you be specific? What policies are you having trouble defending? I'll try to help.

[PaxRyana]

(I think I quoted your reply twice. I'm new to this type of thing and I don't really know how to navigate forums so I apologize.) Basically what help I need is simply to be able to defend Mr. Trump's economic policies. I'm told there's a general consensus among economists that protectionism doesn't work well, and if that's so, I would assume Trump's economic plans aren't going to bode well with the economy. However, I'm not an economist or anything so I don't know. Bottom line, what I'm looking for is unbiased, empirical support for Trump's economic policies, assuming it exists. (Personally, I think the reason Trump's economic policy proposals are so heavily scrutinized is because he's anti-globalist.)

[Will Torbald]

No. You have to ACTIVELY contribute to a disaster in order to be responsible for it. You're arguing X = -X and this is in violation of first principles. You are wrong. The irony is that telling people they have to legitimize slavery makes you more culpable than you claim those who do nothing are.

 

Of all the things you could be doing right now, you're not doing all of them minus one. Does this mean you're responsible for infinite disasters each passing moment? Surely you jest.

 

And if you can do something to stop the disaster you are choosing not to use your power to deterr it. That is an active choice. If you had no power to stop it, that would be different.

[dsayers]

And if you can do something to stop the disaster you are choosing not to use your power to deterr it. That is an active choice. If you had no power to stop it, that would be different.

*mind blown* You're just repeating yourself. Which isn't addressing anything I've said.

 

You are not stopping a disaster if you vote (so how you can make your final claim here and experience no cognitive dissonance is mind blowing). You are adding to disaster when you vote.

 

X != -X.

 

Choosing to not get involved is by definition a PASSIVE choice. Passive is the OPPOSITE of active.

 

Except where it violates a contract, inaction can never denote responsibility. Still.

 

Maybe you should start assigning blame to the responsible. When you point to NOT them, you conceal their aggression and allow for it to flourish.

[Will Torbald]

*mind blown* You're just repeating yourself. Which isn't addressing anything I've said.

 

You are not stopping a disaster if you vote (so how you can make your final claim here and experience no cognitive dissonance is mind blowing). You are adding to disaster when you vote.

 

X != -X.

 

Choosing to not get involved is by definition a PASSIVE choice. Passive is the OPPOSITE of active.

 

Except where it violates a contract, inaction can never denote responsibility. Still.

 

Maybe you should start assigning blame to the responsible. When you point to NOT them, you conceal their aggression and allow for it to flourish.

 

Enjoy your communist overlords. The ones that got elected when you were doing nothing, then.

[rosencrantz]

According to the theory of comparative advantage, trade between two nations benefits both nations, when they specialize in what they are good at. Switzerland is good at making clocks, but not so good in growing wine. Italy cannot into precision mechanics but they are good at making wine. So trade between Switzerland and Italy in theory benefits both nations. 

However, the theory of comparative advantage is based on two key assumptions: 
- Workers can't move freely from one country to another

- Capital can't move freely from one country to another

Since the restrictions on capital movement have been reduced since the early 90s, the macro economy left the land of comparative advantages and moved to absolute advantage. With absolute advantage you don't have any guarantee that both sides of a trade will benefit from it. One example is the flight of the the American car manufacturing industry from places like Flint to the South and Mexico. 

The South benefitted because of cheaper labour law, whereas Michigan and Ohio got the cheap end of the stick. Within a nation, absolute advantage trading is the norm but it is balanced by the fact that workers within a country can move from one place to another. 

If absolute advantage between nations comes into play, the disadvantaged workers of one country don't have the option to move to the country that has the absolut advantage, causing internal problems. 

If capital can move freely, but workers can't you create a situation that is similar to the predicament the United States is in today. 
To fix it, you can either free up the movement for labourers or restrict the movement of capital. The former is illusory because the countries with an absolute advantage have no interest in immigration from competitors.

[yagami]

Sounds like you feel that you need to be able to defend him on every front for some reason. You can stump your friends by saying if you need to be able to defend someone on all fronts what candidate are you supporting that can be defended on all fronts. I doubt they will bug you after that.

[DCLugi]

Inaction that enables is just as culpable. Big difference. If you do nothing to stop a disaster you allow it to happen. Even if your singular vote doesn't stop it, you are tacitly accepting it.

If you're aware of children starving that could be saved by a few dollars is your inactivity responsible for their outcome?

[Will Torbald]

If you're aware of children starving that could be saved by a few dollars is your inactivity responsible for their outcome?

 

Not equivalent. In a vote you are given explicit choice and consequence for everyone involved. It is your problem, and everyone else's in that system at the same time. You are implicated, and cannot claim that doing nothing isn't consequential when the mainstream leftist overlords will reach the event horizon that will turn the US into a de-facto one party third world state given the shift in demographics due to immigration and brainwashing. If you think you're responsibility-free because you didn't vote nor campaigned for any opposition that could have stopped it, you are heavily deluded. What people are suffering in other places of the world due to their choices, or political corruption, bad economy, wars and famines - those problems are outside your system/society and belong to them. When you help them it is a form of charity. When you neglect the problems at your home/nation/state, that's on you. Even if you don't win, it's better to lose than not even trying. I have the privilege of looking at it from an outsider's perspective, and I don't want to see the US go to hell because good people stayed at home feeling righteous with themselves.

[labmath2]

Not equivalent. In a vote you are given explicit choice and consequence for everyone involved. It is your problem, and everyone else's in that system at the same time. You are implicated, and cannot claim that doing nothing isn't consequential when the mainstream leftist overlords will reach the event horizon that will turn the US into a de-facto one party third world state given the shift in demographics due to immigration and brainwashing. If you think you're responsibility-free because you didn't vote nor campaigned for any opposition that could have stopped it, you are heavily deluded. What people are suffering in other places of the world due to their choices, or political corruption, bad economy, wars and famines - those problems are outside your system/society and belong to them. When you help them it is a form of charity. When you neglect the problems at your home/nation/state, that's on you. Even if you don't win, it's better to lose than not even trying. I have the privilege of looking at it from an outsider's perspective, and I don't want to see the US go to hell because good people stayed at home feeling righteous with themselves.

Surely if there is a distinction between your country and another country, there are also more pressing concerns. How many local elections did you vote in? How many city officials did you help elect? Did you vote for state representatives? If you have done none of those, then you have explain why your immediate environment is not more important than the country, but one country is more important than another.

[Will Torbald]

Surely if there is a distinction between your country and another country, there are also more pressing concerns. How many local elections did you vote in? How many city officials did you help elect? Did you vote for state representatives? If you have done none of those, then you have explain why your immediate environment is not more important than the country, but one country is more important than another.

 

I did make that distinction when I said that you are responsible for the system you are inside of. There are multiple layers of government, and if any of those layers were spelling doom, then yes, you enabled an evil mayor, or an evil governor. Right now the threat is an evil president. And one that will make it impossible for any peaceful revolution towards liberty as their powers grow. It's big. I can't vote for France's freedom, only the French. Standing down enables the balance to tilt towards the leftist paradise by not adding weight to the opposition. And after the opposition wins, then you vote for one that offers even more freedom than the one before. That's the only path towards liberty in a democracy that doesn't involve warfare. Society doesn't do big leaps, people can't take it. That's how the left has turned the US into a Marxist playground. The same tactic can be turned around, but libertarians are too comfortable thinking a voting strike will do something.

[labmath2]

I did make that distinction when I said that you are responsible for the system you are inside of. There are multiple layers of government, and if any of those layers were spelling doom, then yes, you enabled an evil mayor, or an evil governor. Right now the threat is an evil president. And one that will make it impossible for any peaceful revolution towards liberty as their powers grow. It's big. I can't vote for France's freedom, only the French. Standing down enables the balance to tilt towards the leftist paradise by not adding weight to the opposition. And after the opposition wins, then you vote for one that offers even more freedom than the one before. That's the only path towards liberty in a democracy that doesn't involve warfare. Society doesn't do big leaps, people can't take it. That's how the left has turned the US into a Marxist playground. The same tactic can be turned around, but libertarians are too comfortable thinking a voting strike will do something.

Is it safe to say you keep up with local, city, and state elections enough to know if a candidate is evil?

[dsayers]

In a vote you are given explicit choice

*the illusion of choice

 

There's a reason you continue to disregard and not yield to this refutation.

 

It is your problem, and everyone else's in that system at the same time.

Here, "system" is obfuscation. It's my problem if I go into a Taco Bell and take a bunch of napkins in that the price of my burritos will rise accordingly. However, if I don't vote for Taco Bell, I'm not allowing Burger King to impact their market share. Unless of course I actually use that vote to vote for Burger King. Because--get this--inaction doesn't equal action! :O

 

I also noticed that you continue to conflate not voting with "doing nothing." And you continue to speak as if dismantling the mafia from within is the only solution. These are mental prisons. Which is ironic because breaking out of that mental prison is all that it takes. And what I do in lieu of voting is try to free as many slaves within their own minds. A tedious undertaking to be sure because you run into the occasional slave *holds up a mirror for you* who INSISTS they should not be free.

[Will Torbald]

Is it safe to say you keep up with local, city, and state elections enough to know if a candidate is evil?

 

This is the same question.

 

 

*the illusion of choice

 

There's a reason you continue to disregard and not yield to this refutation.

 

Here, "system" is obfuscation. It's my problem if I go into a Taco Bell and take a bunch of napkins in that the price of my burritos will rise accordingly. However, if I don't vote for Taco Bell, I'm not allowing Burger King to impact their market share. Unless of course I actually use that vote to vote for Burger King. Because--get this--inaction doesn't equal action! :O

 

I also noticed that you continue to conflate not voting with "doing nothing." And you continue to speak as if dismantling the mafia from within is the only solution. These are mental prisons. Which is ironic because breaking out of that mental prison is all that it takes. And what I do in lieu of voting is try to free as many slaves within their own minds. A tedious undertaking to be sure because you run into the occasional slave *holds up a mirror for you* who INSISTS they should not be free.

 

I know all the ancap arguments and they are bad arguments in this situation. I am not in a mental prison or a slave, I know full well that democracy isn't going to end the state in one go. And you should know full well that this ad hominem game you play is not an argument.

[ValueOfBrevity]

The result of not voting is enabling the most mainstream candidate to win. Congratulations, your inactions elected Hillary Clinton.

What gives you the impression that a single cast vote will affect the election?

 

 

[labmath2]

This is the same question.

 

Its not the same question. This is asking if you actually know who your local representatives, city officials and state representatives. I have never met anyone who is not in politics that actually knows them. You will be the first.

[powder]

every generation is given its civilization ending crisis to make sure they run to the state to fix it, to safeguard the future, to buy time,...  Nazi's, Commies, Immigrants, global warming,...  

 

the oligarchs are very good at this game and have been playing it for centuries.  They know they only need to wait another generation for everyone to forget how the game is played.  

 

It is a very effective way to silence the voices of freedom who get suckered into it and reach for the ring.  

[dsayers]

I know all the ancap arguments and they are bad arguments in this situation.

Ah, so your mind is closed because you're dealing with something from the past instead of what's being said in the present. Thanks for sharing. BTW, this is not an argument.

 

I am not in a mental prison or a slave

When you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and yell "la la la la la," the fingers in your ears are literally the walls of the prison you are in.

 

this ad hominem game you play is not an argument.

Deflection, assertion, and poisoning the well. You haven't been making any arguments in this entire exchange. Just scare tactics and satire. I've put forth many arguments. X != -X is an argument from first principles, which you have yet to address despite it being put forth what? Like five times? If you don't like the way somebody reacts to you just repeating yourself over and over again, you could always just not do that. Finally, 

 

ad hominem - directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

At no point in time have I NOT addressed your position. Try again.

[DCLugi]

Not equivalent. In a vote you are given explicit choice and consequence for everyone involved. It is your problem, and everyone else's in that system at the same time. You are implicated, and cannot claim that doing nothing isn't consequential when the mainstream leftist overlords will reach the event horizon that will turn the US into a de-facto one party third world state given the shift in demographics due to immigration and brainwashing. If you think you're responsibility-free because you didn't vote nor campaigned for any opposition that could have stopped it, you are heavily deluded. What people are suffering in other places of the world due to their choices, or political corruption, bad economy, wars and famines - those problems are outside your system/society and belong to them. When you help them it is a form of charity. When you neglect the problems at your home/nation/state, that's on you. Even if you don't win, it's better to lose than not even trying. I have the privilege of looking at it from an outsider's perspective, and I don't want to see the US go to hell because good people stayed at home feeling righteous with themselves.

Home? Nation? State? System? These are subjective terms. I can start a system today that claims anyone named Will must support every child in the world. Of course you would say that you don't participate in that system to which I will say welcome to my world:)

[Will Torbald]

What gives you the impression that a single cast vote will affect the election?

 

 

 

What gives you the impression you are alone in that sentiment? How many millions of people don't vote because they think it won't make a difference? 50 million? Say 50 million people who thought their single little tiny one vote didn't matter. When you see them from afar you can realize how silly that really is. I'm arguing against the current of defeatism and pseudo gratification for being so intellectually enlightened that you won't vote in your own favor.

[dsayers]

What gives you the impression you are alone in that sentiment? How many millions of people don't vote because they think it won't make a difference? 50 million? Say 50 million people who thought their single little tiny one vote didn't matter. When you see them from afar you can realize how silly that really is. I'm arguing against the current of defeatism and pseudo gratification for being so intellectually enlightened that you won't vote in your own favor.

You're missing the point. Votes don't matter. They just change the rules and/or sometimes steal elections. It's a farce to keep otherwise good people occupied at NOT solving the REAL issue, which is that they're enslaved in their own minds.

[ValueOfBrevity]

What gives you the impression you are alone in that sentiment? How many millions of people don't vote because they think it won't make a difference? 50 million? Say 50 million people who thought their single little tiny one vote didn't matter. When you see them from afar you can realize how silly that really is. I'm arguing against the current of defeatism and pseudo gratification for being so intellectually enlightened that you won't vote in your own favor.

You are fallaciously assuming every apathetic nonvoter is in favor of smaller government.

[Will Torbald]

Home? Nation? State? System? These are subjective terms. I can start a system today that claims anyone named Will must support every child in the world. Of course you would say that you don't participate in that system to which I will say welcome to my world:)

That you could do that doesn't change the fact that a group of people already did that to your ancestors and you are stuck inside a country. You can either move, overthrow it by force, or change it through votes. I don't see anyone moving, nor overthrowing anything.

[shirgall]

"Today I'm going to talk about how to make American wealthy again..."

 

[dsayers]

You can either move, overthrow it by force, or change it through votes.

Not only is this a false trichotomy, but it's false across the board. You can NOT move, without their permission, paying their fees, filling out their forms, or doing so in a way they okay. You can NOT overthrow it by force because they have greater technology and perceived legitimacy. You can NOT change it through votes! This has been pointed out so many times already.

 

The perceived legitimacy is the lynch pin. If you can convince people that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, that taxation is theft, that VOTING ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING (which is NOT doing nothing as you continue to claim), they are seen as nothing more than the annoying mosquitos that they are. If the enforcer class rejected the proposition that they are immune from morality, we'd have a revolution TODAY without a drop of blood shed.

 

What's the view like from this mental prison you so desperately insist on staying within? Must be breathtaking.