As I watched reporters last week comparing the Trump economic plan to the Hillary economic plan, which were both offered last week from the same venue on different days, I realized the reporters had no clue they were comparing apples to oranges.
First, Trump's proposals for tax changes were specific, whereas Hillary's were a collection of liberal redistribution and class warfare narratives. Trump's proposals to boost economic growth recognized dynamic analysis, whereas Hillary employed political establishment's typical static analysis.
Simply put, a dynamic analysis makes assumptions about changes in business and consumer actions as a result of the stated proposals. Static analysis makes no assumptions about changes in people's actions, which leads to misleading conclusions about outcomes as they shift people's money from one person to somebody else's. (We discussed the difference in more detail yesterday.)
For example, when business and personal tax rates are significantly lowered, businesses will invest in their businesses which creates more jobs, and consumers will have more money to spend. The result is an increase in GDP growth. You can quibble about how much growth, but the experiences of the 1960's and 1980's prove that the economic growth will be significant.
Democrats and socialists continue to ignore these facts in order to try to sell their redistribution of income, class warfare political agenda.
Second, Trump has declared a moratorium on new regulations, which stifle economic growth. Hillary has proposed ideas that would require new rules and regulations. Those rules and regulations are hidden behind the constant rhetoric of "fairer" and "making the rich pay more".
Hillary's rhetoric would produce no new private sector jobs, just more government jobs
By the way! Hillary and the Democrats never reveal their rules for "fairer", or who the "rich" really are, because they want to write those rules just before they shove them down the people's throats. Remember ObamaCare!
Third, Trump's proposals represent bold changes to the political establishment's bureaucracy, whereas Hillary's suggestions are a continuation of the failed policies of the Obama Administration. The best example is that Trump wants to replace ObamaCare, whereas, Hillary wants to build on the failed ObamaCare system.
Once again, the Democrats ignore the fact that ObamaCare is a failure, so they can continue to promote their socialist political agenda.
A business associate said that he would probably increase his staff by 10 percent if the corporate tax rate is reduced from 35 percent to 15 percent as Trump is proposing. If we apply that assumption to the entire workforce, dynamically, that's many millions more better paying jobs during just one term of a Trump presidency. Hillary's rhetoric would produce no new private sector jobs, just more government jobs.
Support Canada Free Press
Economic prosperity versus economic stagnation
Trump versus Hillary. Dynamic versus static. Economic growth versus no economic growth. Fewer taxes versus more taxes. More jobs versus fewer jobs. Fewer regulations versus more regulations.
Economic prosperity versus economic stagnation.
Apples versus oranges!
It's your choice on November 8.
As I watched reporters last week comparing the Trump economic plan to the Hillary economic plan, which were both offered last week from the same venue on different days, I realized the reporters had no clue they were comparing apples to oranges.
First, Trump's proposals for tax changes were specific, whereas Hillary's were a collection of liberal redistribution and class warfare narratives. Trump's proposals to boost economic growth recognized dynamic analysis, whereas Hillary employed political establishment's typical static analysis.
