Copyright © 2016


July 30, 2016 – With both the Republican Convention and the Democratic Conventions behind us we are now in the general election part of this election cycle. Each candidate has given their prescription for fixing the economy, which both are acknowledging needs fixed.

Prior to either convention Donald Trump campaigned on the fact that the economy has had the slowest growth ever following an American recession. Trump talked about several things which would get the economy going again, much of which involved the Private Sector growing in the U.S. Hillary Clinton, during the Primary cycle, campaigned that the economy was not that bad but could be improved. Since then she has flipped to the position that the economy needs to “get going again”.

Donald Trump’s plans include re-negotiating trade deals which were built on a crony-capitalist agenda in which corporations made billions of dollars by out-sourcing jobs to third-world countries. According to many in the financial field, by renegotiating the ‘free-trade’ deals, millions of jobs would be created in the United States within three years, striking the biggest boom to the economy since the 1950’s. The problem with this for Hillary Clinton is that she, and the other career politicians in the Democrat Party, were front and center with career Republicans in ensuring the original job-killing deals were made. This is why the establishment politicians of both parties have been so resistant to Donald Trump. The Lobbying industry has become nervous about Donald Trump because their clout would be greatly reduced in being able to make ‘contributions’ to politicians for deals that favor their bosses.

Hillary Clinton’s plan includes borrowing from lender-nations and spending money on infrastructure work. This alone has been estimated to contribute greatly to the American debt. Other than infrastructure borrow-spend plans, Clinton has had little to say of substance that would fix the economy. During the Democrat Convention in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton mentioned the infrastructure borrow-spend idea and then immediately turned toward ‘free college’ as a means of stimulating the economy, leaving economists wondering how she drew the conclusion that free college would boost the economy. Some are now questioning Clinton’s understanding of national economics. Hillary Clinton has had difficulty explaining support for NAFTA in the past and also relationships through the Clinton Foundation which have fostered many deals which have hurt the economy.

Career politicians in both parties have been stretching to explain how their leadership has brought the American economy to where it is. During the 1990s the ‘Tech Boom’ went full cycle, regardless of who held the White House. But by the late 1990s the bubble burst. With the 9/11 attacks, the economy began to greatly decline and little was done during the Bush and Obama years to heal the economic wounds. And career insiders like Clintons, Bush’s, and Ryan’s seem to have little concern for the sluggish economy, all the while making more crony deals.