Prominent Economists, Including Eight Nobel Laureates: ‘Do Not Vote for Donald Trump’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51297647]I feel ive put forth my argument clearly enough now. and have yet to receive a rebuttal to my challenge.[/QUOTE] Well I mean their reasons for denouncing Donald Trump is pretty straightforward. He wants to decrease Government revenue and increase Government spending. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens then: money go bye-bye, deficit grow.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51297647]I feel ive put forth my argument clearly enough now. and have yet to receive a rebuttal to my challenge.[/QUOTE] What rebuttal do you expect? You're initially equated economics to some sort of voodoo that no one truly understands, then changed your mind and decided it's actually a partisan issue based in greed. Which, okay, partisan? Maybe if it was 7 economists or whatever that all coincidentally agreed with high spending, high taxation policy then maybe but that doesn't seem to be the case. We are talking about hundreds of economists weighed against a handful who support Trump's plan. And it seems to be a bipartisan group, as I imagine any group of 370 professionals would be. As for greed, someone else already hit you up on this one: What is in it for an economist to say "Trump's plan is garbage we shouldn't enact it please don't vote for him". It's not like they stand to gain or lose money personally. Maybe, like climate scientists and scientists in general, they have come to the conclusion that this politicians stance on a policy is genuinely bad for the country they live in.

I just have one thing to say: Nobody should ever need anyone to tell them why they shouldn't vote for Trump. It's fucking Donald Trump guys and girls... Even the Devil would be a better candidate.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;51298286]I just have one thing to say: Nobody should ever need anyone to tell them why they shouldn't vote for Trump. It's fucking Donald Trump guys and girls... Even the Devil would be a better candidate.[/QUOTE] okay so I understand that Trump is a bad candidate, and you've good intentions but the framing and implications of 'nobody should ever need anyone to tell them why they shouldn't vote for x' is intellectually faulty in a few ways. first, it assumes that your standpoint is objectively valid to such a degree that the opposing one is inherently stupid-- sure, it's not inarguable that a Trump vote is dumb, but that's incredibly aggressive. this is the starting point of tribal thinking that leads to evaluating much less polarized issues in simplistic and uncompromising terms that don't get anyone anywhere. even ignoring that point, and going all the way to state that Trump is the objectively bad candidate, your 'one thing to say' then implies all people should just 'know' that standpoint and its justification inherently, which is rather unrealistic. it's a minor point, but this is a linguistic issue anyway. to summarize: please don't presume that your standpoint is objectively right and disagreement is stupid. that doesn't service debate, nor does it contribute to understanding and actually fixing problems.

[QUOTE=Falchion;51296328]trump is in favor of more laissez faire low taxation economy which is supposed to fix the resulting deficit by boosting growth by making it more profitable to do business in the US. hillary is in favor of a plan for increased income equality to boost growth by increasing spending power of the middle-class. edit: and of course the whole basis for any sort of reasoning like this is rooted in economic academia. starting from price equilibrium, rational choice theory and labour market flexibility to restricted rationality and the effects of wages on growth edit2: not to say there's anything wrong with some laissez-faire with notable reservations but i don't really think you can cut taxes by 2,9 trillion and expect short or medium term economic growth to close the gap without severely downsizing state spending[/QUOTE] more laissez faire economy -> Trump? No ma niggah, we live in different ghettos then