Group of 16 Nobel prize-winning economists all agree which presidential candidate would be worst for inflation

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.

That’s fine, at least it’s Republicans you’re supporting,

You need to follow your own advice because . I do not support Republicans, I support only those Republicans who fight for this nation. I will make concessions only because we need to have control with Trump back in the White House. Otherwise, Trump can never begin to be effective.

I haven't backtracked on anything, and you know that s the truth. If it were true, you would have brought the receipts.

You say you're a skeptic, but that is not true, because you present arguments that are worthy of skepticism, but you are not the least bit skeptical of your sources.

Let's take the example that I honed in on, which is the bipartisan non-profit that was started over 40 years ago, and has undergone many changes that make the qualifier of being bipartisan, laughable at best.

It stated that the tariffs and tax cuts added X amount to the budget over the next 10 years. That's a complete projection, and none of these clowns are particularly reliable with their projections. That's the first thing you should be skeptical of. The amount of debt under Trump was 7.8 trillion. Now the also stated that Trump was absorbing debt that was created by others before him, and that forecast was 3 trillion. So if you take the 8.4 trillion forecast over 10 years, that means the + 2.5 trillion and the - 3 trillion means the result would be a -.48 reduction of the 7.8 figure. yet they have increased the Trump debt amount to 8.4 trillion, instead the 7.32 it rightly was. 34.8 - 27.32. Furthermore, your source stated: Over the course of President Trump’s four years in office, the gross national debt grew from $19.95 trillion to $27.75 trillion – a $7.8 trillion increase. So, he rounds up to add 50 billion. Chicken feed right. What else has rounded up?

There exact statement is:

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

An estimate is not a fact. It is thus not a credible number on which can be justified to add to Trump's debt spending, or take away from Biden. Especially when they do not provide how they came to arrive at that estimate. However, you point to that as if it is a stone cold fact.

You buy your source on face value, I do not buy it on face value. On the flip side you do not buy my source, and you would be correct to be skeptical of both sources. As am I.

Because critical thinking compels me to be skeptical, when there is no uniform method to calculate the debt accumulated by concrete figures, but instead use estimates to project their result. It's too easy to play games when "estimates" are used.

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.

Well, you can make that claim, but you had better take a look in the mirror, because you have no receipts to back up that claim. Thus, you are projecting ,like a good Democrat would, what your problem is. You're neither skeptical as you claim, nor are you a critical thinker. You are gullible to accept tactics that have been used for decades to build up one candidate over the opposing candidate.

Just out of curiosity, what was your take on Covid? Did you question it, or did you assume that your government wouldn't lie to you?

Common knowledge. You just now figuring that out? Well, good. I’ve said to you repeatedly the 3 biggest problems facing Americans are the attacks against our monetary system via the national debt, the attacks against our minds and culture led by the sexual perverts, and the attacks against our bodies led by the food and drug manufacturers who profit from it. Those affect every American, on a 24/7 basis. All this other stuff we are bombarded with are ancillary problems, designed to stir up our emotions, and distract us from actually doing anything about the real problems we face.

You don’t want to face them. All you care about, as witnessed by your constant attempts to drag the discussion back to your limited mindset, are the people crossing the border (most of which just want a better life and aren’t the boogieman), and whether Trump should bear any responsibility for running up the debt like he did. You are literally obsessed with trying to defend his name, whether than give a flip about now much debt was run up. I’m not singling out Trump, they’ve all done it. You’re the one singling him out, because you view the entire world through the lens of how it affects one man. Trump is better than Biden by a mile, and I’ll certainly be voting for him, but on our core issues I mentioned yet again he’s pretty much AWOL, if not contributing to them. And even on your core issue, the border, do you really think mass deportations are really going to start the day Trump takes office, should he win? Why, he already promised it once before, in 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/donald-trump-deportation-force-debate-immigration/index.html

But watch, you won’t even read that article, even though there are countless other sources on Trump’s failed promise to deport anyone the last time. You’ll just go ooh, cnn, but remain oblivious to what’s really going on. Which is fine, there’s countless drones like you out there, as I said at least you’re helping Trump win which we need, but you seriously need to back off the attacks of others simply because they may have or have had a disagreement with Trump along the way, as he’s been far from perfect. This post surmises my thoughts and frustrations with you. Read it several times, reflect, and maybe try me on another thread sometime. Thanks and have a good 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.