A Nobel medal has as much meaning as a urinal puck.
Posted on 06/26/2024 8:41:43 AM PDT by algore
A group of 16 Nobel prize-winning economists have issued a stark warning that inflation would be worse under Donald Trump.
The former president would reignite inflation and cause lasting harm to the US economy, the Nobel laureates said in a letter first obtained by Axios.
'While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we all agree that Joe Biden's economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump,' the letter read.
The warning was spearheaded by American economist Joseph Stiglitz, who won the prestigious honor for economics in 2001.
Inflation remains a hot topic for voters ahead of the presidential election in November, and Trump has long used criticism of so-called 'Bidenomics' as a way to gather support.
The economists wrote: 'We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the US's economic standing in the world, and a destabilizing effect on the US's domestic economy.'
'Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast.
There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets,' they continued.
The annual rate of inflation fell slightly to 3.3 percent in May - down from the month prior.
This is down from a 40-year high of 9.1 percent in June 2022, but still above the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target.
Stiglitz was joined in his warning by fellow Nobel laureates George A. Akerlof, Sir Angus Deaton, Claudia Goldin, Sir Oliver Hart, Eric S. Maskin, Daniel L. McFadden, Paul R. Milgrom, Roger B. Myerson, Edmund S. Phelps, Paul M. Romer, Alvin E. Roth, William F. Sharpe, Robert J. Shiller, Christopher A. Sims, and Robert B. Wilson.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Maybe the debate moderators will stifle Trump so much he won’t be able to act like a prick again.
Sounds like the same group of 16 Nobel laureates who were DEAD WRONG about EVERY SINGLE THING DJT ever did. And looked STUPID 6 months after he did it. Again and again and again.
A total lie.
The U.S. national debt was more than $31.42 trillion in December 2022.
The debt at the end of 2020 was $27.7 trillion.
So, 31.4 trillion - 27.7 trillion is 3.7 trillion.
First bullet point under Key Takeaways (at the top under the picture.
Current debt clock at $34.8 trillion.
So, $34.8 trillion - $31.42 trillion would be 3.4 trillion added between the end of 2022 to this current day.
3.4 trillion + 3.7 trillion for a total of 7.1 trillion that has been added so far to the national debt of the same type of borrowing with seven months remaining in his term. Not the 4.3 trillion they falsely claim.
I've heard several people saying that a trillion dollars will be added to the national debt every 100 days.
Since this is a leap year, there are 366 days in 2024. We are currently on day 178. So, 366 - 178 = 188 days remaining (188 + 178 = 366).
So, 7.1 trillion currently + 1 trillion would = 8.1 trillion.
With another 88 days remaining in 2024 + 20 days in 2025 means that there are 108 days remaining in Biden's first, and hopefully last, term.
Thus, 8.1 trillion + 1 trillion = 9.1 trillion as the possible Biden dent added to the national debt.
Regardless, I doubt there is any way it will be less than the $8.4 trillion Trump added to the national debt.
In addition, the fact that Saudi Arabia has refused to renew petro-dollars agreement., The U.S. dollar is now a completely fiat currency. We may currently be the best currency available, but it is without question being viewed as increasingly becoming a real risk. Prediction, higher inflation will be the reality. Trump will face a daunting situation created by both parties with their refusal to take on the out-of-control spending that is bankrupting this nation, and all of us as well.
I hate to defend Biden, I truly do, but your math is so faulty it can’t be avoided. And I’m not really defending Biden anyway, I’m defending the intergity of the math when it comes to these types of calculations.
Specifically, national debt with regard to a President is not calculated simply by starting the count on the day that person becomes President, and ending on the day the leave office, as you are always clearly attempting to do.
It is instead based on how many obligations that President assumed while President, even if the spending takes place after they leave office. Likewise, any Presidents contribution to the debt isn’t based on obligations made by previous Presidents.
Now typically, obligations are only for one year, and therefore do often align with that President’s term. But not always. For example, the tax cuts that Trump signed into law actually were being paid for in many instances by expected debt after he left office, and are therefore added to his contribution to the debt, verses added to the Presidents that come after him.
It takes studies from offices like he congressional budget office to accurately come up with figures attributed to actions by a President. You calling someone else a liar when you don’t even understand the basics of these calculations is shameful.
A Nobel medal has as much meaning as a urinal puck.
Every federal budget comes from Congress, not the President. These idiots obviously don’t even understand the basics of the process.
Presidents typically give their suggestions to Congress, but that often goes straight in the trash if it wasn’t worked up behind doors to begin with, as most of the proposals that are eventually accepted come from lobbyists.
Democrats are well known to be the most wasteful spenders as well. In other words, this entire article is complete trash.
I provided links that provide the debts they list year by year, and was used to come up with the 8.4 trillion debt they have attributed as being Donald Trumps addition to the national debt.
You have proven nothing. All you have done is make a statement. So, actually prove your argument.
My Econ professor was lecturing about supply and demand and was using her personal habit of buying 6-7 bottles of Dr. Pepper from the faculty lounge pop machine and that it cost $1.50 per bottle.
I asked her why didn’t she stop buying from the machine to see if they would lower the price as a result of the lowering the demand. Then I asked why she doesn’t she buy a case of it at Costco as that would be cheaper because of their high demand plus allow her to realize a savings which she could use on other products.
She was dumbfounded.
I forgot to mention that she was buying 6-7 bottles each day.
To be fair, the national debt has been the result of Congressional budgets and spending, primarily. However, when Presidents sign those proposals into law, they take ownership in name, somewhat unfairly. But here are several articles explaining the process to you.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-trump-add-debt
https://thehill.com/business/4426965-trump-added-8-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-analysis/
While his plan limits certain tax preferences and deductions, it does not include any reductions in federal spending. As a result, the Trump plan increases the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion or $12 trillion, according to several estimates
Were these 16 part of the 51 people who signed a paper saying that Hunters’ Laptop was disinformation or are they a new group of Democratic backed liars?
Like the 51 Intelligence experts that said the lap top was Russian disinformation.
Or the economists that said that the new guy in Argentina plan would make everything worse.
Anything that has to do with DNC, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Democrats in general is like that.
I wonder how much Daily Mail was paid to publish this article.
Trump wanted spending cuts to pay for the tax cuts, but the House refused to deliver the spending cuts. Instead they continued the annual increases to all agencies. They couldn't even freeze the annual allotment at the previous budget amount.
So, you have part of the answer but still ignore the realities.
From the first link you provided:
In the recent GOP primary presidential debate, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley claimed that President Trump added $8 trillion to the national debt while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said that President Trump added $7.8 trillion to the debt. These statements are true, depending on how you measure additions to the debt. We estimate the ten-year cost of the legislation and executive actions President Trump signed into law was about $8.4 trillion, with interest.
So, they are admitting that all claims are subjective. All three are correct according to the bipartisan non-profit, started 42 years ago, that has for the majority of recent years been slowly taken over by Democrats & RINOs who make up the Uni-party that has eroded that bipartisan attribution. But let's continue:
A better way to measure how much President Trump added to the debt is to evaluate the ten-year debt impact of the laws and executive orders he signed. We estimate that those added a combined $8.4 trillion to the debt over a ten-year period – consistent with Haley’s claim.
On net, almost all of the $8.4 trillion in ten-year debt approved by Trump came in the form of legislation, with costly executive actions largely offset by a unilateral expansion of tariffs. It included $8.8 trillion of net increases in the debt and $445 billion of net reductions. $7.3 trillion represents an increase in primary deficits, and $1 trillion comes from interest costs.
So, now while the years indicate that Trump added 7.8 trillion during his term in office, he gets blamed for some of the Biden presidency, and that blame is attributed to his tax cuts & tariffs.
But the truth is that it's the result of Bidens policies coupled with Democrat governors who installed draconian Covid lockdowns that decimated many small businesses.
Biden didn't help with his restrictions & regulations placed upon the oil industry, in order to enact his Green New Deal policies.
In addition, they passed out money that was scammed by many Democrat supporters fir their businesses over Covid. But that is blamed on Trump, because he signed the legislation to help business weather out the Covid BS.
As a result of these decimated small businesses, the rampant theft occurring in other remaining business where law-and-order was ignored by progressive DAs, has had an additional negative impact on those businesses that ultimately led to multiple closures of more stores.
Throwing open the borders allowing huge numbers of illegal invaders to enter our country has certainly negatively impacted the economy.
They constantly claim these wonderful numbers of job creation, only to quietly release the real numbers which exposes their original narratives as the abject lies they were. they continually foist lies upon the American public in the form of gaslighting those who are gullible even to buy the lies.
As a result of all of this destruction to the jobs market, which BTW the creation of jobs are all parttime jobs, and the loss of good paying fulltime jobs have declined since Joe Biden has assumed office. The majority of those jobs have gone to illegal invaders who most likely don't even contribute any of that to the Treasury.
In addition, they report that the fulfillment of these parttime jobs has reduced the unemployment numbers regardless of the fact more than one job had been taken by a person who has multiple jobs to support their needs.
More lies to bolster the Joe Biden presidency.
But the reality is that there has been less money coming into the treasury as a result of Bidennomics. Less money coming in but more money going out, is not the result of Trump's tax cuts or tariffs either, which they conveniently add in as being Trump's addition to the national debt, not Biden's.
I won't even look at the The Hill article or the Brookings Institute's argument, because they are both known cheerleaders for bigger government. Thus, they too will commit accounting shifting to create the narrative that gullible people like you stuck-up as the truth.
So, your proof is just more lies to create narratives for those are easily swayed by their "expertise".
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Some people never learn though.
For those who may not know the history behind the Nobel Prize. Criticism of Nobel focuses on his leading role in weapons manufacturing and sales. Some people question his motives in creating his prizes, suggesting they are intended to improve his reputation.
When his brother (Ludvig) died and all of the world newspapers said numerous bad things about Alfred Bernhard Nobel, (thinking he had just died, when in fact it was his brother, Ludvig) such as Murder, War Monger, Dynamite killer, ‘Merchant of death’ etc., it was then he came up with the Nobel Prize. And now you know the rest of the story about the first WOKE prize for the elites.
Nonetheless, he {Alfred Bernhard} found out what others thought of his invention when, in 1888, his brother Ludvig died. Though some journalistic error, Alfred’s obituary was widely printed instead, and he was scorned for being the man who made millions through the deaths of others. One French newspaper wrote “Le marchand de la mort est mort,” or “the merchant of death is dead.” The obituary went on to describe Nobel as a man “who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before.”
Exactly what I was thinking. Or don’t forget the group that said Trump would start WW3 if he was elected in 2016. Makes you wonder what would motivate someone (like these “economists”) to piss away their credibility.
You’re the obvious liar, for still refusing to admit that the proper way to determine a President’s contribution to the debt is by counting all the financial liabilities they enacted that extend beyond their individual term in office.
Your original attempt to count the number of work days a President has remaining in office to calculate their overall impact to the debt remains hysterically juvenile, and ignorant, but you’re welcome to stick to your third grade math if you prefer, just don’t bear false witness claiming everyone else is wrong.
But I do insist that you are gullible, that I will admit, because you are oblivious to the games that are played to lay blame on some other president. A ploy the Democrats have been employing for decades.
Instead you accept the claptrap dished out because you defer to their "expertise".
Figures may never lie, but liars always figure. Especially true in politics.
Nobel Prize winners in Economics used to be somewhat well known (Friedman, Hayek, Samuelson, Myrdal). I haven’t kept up with economics lately, but apart from Stiglitz, who was in the government, I haven’t heard of any of these guys except Deaton, who was the subject of an online article at some point.
You should be a lot more careful of your repeated use of the word “lies” since you’re now having to backtrack.
And “Gullible” is certainly not a word to correctly describe me. “Cynic” or “Skeptic” would be much more appropriate.
You on the other hand appear extremely naive, and not only willing, but anxious to swallow and then perfectly regurgitate whatever your favorite politicians feed you, without even the slightest application of actual critical thinking.
That’s fine, at least it’s Republicans you’re supporting, even though that mindless level of devotion is much more typical of the left. Hope you have a good rest of your day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.