He says the prospect of Republican nominee Donald J. Trump winning the presidency has him “nervous.”
“It just creates so much uncertainty,” Rogoff told Business Insider. “I don’t know what his economic policies would be. I know what he says.”
That’s not to say Rogoff agrees with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on everything, but he said, “I feel safer having someone I think I know and understand better – Secretary Clinton – than I do with someone as erratic as Trump.”
Read more at Harvard economist Rogoff: I'm 'nervous' about Trump winning - Business Insider
N. Korean president is more predictable than Trump.
I wonder what Rogoff really knows about Clinton's policies that make him so sanguine? o let's list a few economic issues and perhaps you can give us your sense of what will happen.
1. How will Hillary put our tech companies in a better place as it relates to China stealing our intellectual property?
2. How will INCREASING corporate taxes lead to bringing more jobs to America, not just from American based firms but other global firms.
3. How will the financial industry prosper under a Clinton administration, and a democratic senate led by Warren?
4. How will our security be enhanced with Clinton's proposal to expand Obama's immigration executive orders and swell the number of refugees she would
allow into the country.
5. The Yellen Fed has led us down the path of Europe and Japan which have dismal economic performances over the last several decades. How would her
reappointment be something an economist you root for?
6. In a country where we have too many unskilled workers who can't compete in the world economically, why would we want to officially add 10-20 million
to our ranks. What happens to entitlement spending when these folks get added to the Medicade, social security and disability roles?
7. Does he believe the hype thrown out by Clinton dupes that he will start a trade war. Or is it more reasonable to expect that he will work to fix our trade deals, and have countries stop cheating. If they continue to cheat, is fighting back starting a trade war or reacting to one we refuse to acknowledge. Like the fight against terrorism we won't name.
Yes Trump is a knucklehead and says many stupid and vile things IMO. That being said, he may be closer to the proper answer on key issues than Clinton.
He knows nuts about foreign policy. Clinton is a leader here.
You never got the economic answers right for more than a decade anyway.
As she has so clumsily demonstrated by destroying the middle east and eliminating America's ability to control events in the middle east and the south China Sea.He knows nuts about foreign policy. Clinton is a leader here.
N. Korean president is more predictable than Trump.
N. Korean president is more predictable than Trump.
He knows nuts about foreign policy. Clinton is a leader here.
You never got the economic answers right for more than a decade anyway.
If it matters, Trump will be going through and cooperating with congress, Hillary has no intention of doing so and plans to govern via executive order like Obama.
Seems like having a savvy, experienced leader of the economy who can change direction on a dime due to the prevailing needs of the moment in the context of the outcomes of the future might be a good idea.
If your prime goal in any business deal is to benefit your employer, then we should do well if our negotiator thinks his boss is the USA.
If your negotiator thinks his boss is the Democrat party, we'll end up with globalist arrangements in which we don't realize the benefits available in the deal.
Do you want to see what the outcome of the bad deal is? Look at the Iran Nuclear Deal. Over the years, knowing that the deal was all that Obama wanted, the Iranians kept asking for more. Obama kept giving in and we got the worst deal ever made. Same thing happened with Nixon in the Viet Nam Peace talks.
Now the Iranians have the respect of the world, a whole pile of cash from Obama sent illegally, Korean missiles and a thriving nuclear program. Whiskey Indigo Foxtrot Mike?
The Russian re-set? How about the European map Re-set?
What's wrong with someone having nuclear capability. They have not shot at anyone yet while the schools went on a shooting spree.
Too many current leaders are all up in this one world/one economy thing. As you can see Hillary is not against labor moving across borders to "keep prices competitive" I.E. keep wages low. She will legalize some 15 million Mexicans, and more will flow in behind them like last time. We'll call this "localism" - one big happy continent, gleefully pushing Americans out of jobs only the eternal poor will do butressed with EIC, free medical, free education, and instant citizenship by the next election.
The result of internationalism is the rich are richer, the elite are richer, our political leaders are getting richer, not to mention selling influence on the side, and our country is decaying because there is not enough money available to fix it because we leave so much on the table by shipping finished goods in from overseas. We are taking a "finished goods" mark up on the dock, bypassing our factories where our citizens used to work. What we save is spent on unemployment and welfare. There is no free lunch.
Building our country requires jobs, but it also requires money to pay people. So far the nations productivity is being vacuumed up by medical costs, social costs, and taxes.
Hillary is telling her rich benefactors, that she is going to raise their taxes. Well, she knows as well as anyone that without tax reform, they will avoid paying those taxes via various tax shifting means. Hillary won't do tax reform because, again "Change is risk" and wealth doesn't like risk.
As she has so clumsily demonstrated by destroying the middle east and eliminating America's ability to control events in the middle east and the south China Sea.
And now terrorists are killing us at home.
Yup. Hillary is a real winner all right. The only countries left intact are those that "contributed" to the Clinton Foundation.
Too many current leaders are all up in this one world/one economy thing. As you can see Hillary is not against labor moving across borders to "keep prices competitive" I.E. keep wages low. She will legalize some 15 million Mexicans, and more will flow in behind them like last time. We'll call this "localism" - one big happy continent, gleefully pushing Americans out of jobs only the eternal poor will do butressed with EIC, free medical, free education, and instant citizenship by the next election.
The result of internationalism is the rich are richer, the elite are richer, our political leaders are getting richer, not to mention selling influence on the side, and our country is decaying because there is not enough money available to fix it because we leave so much on the table by shipping finished goods in from overseas. We are taking a "finished goods" mark up on the dock, bypassing our factories where our citizens used to work. What we save is spent on unemployment and welfare. There is no free lunch.
Building our country requires jobs, but it also requires money to pay people. So far the nations productivity is being vacuumed up by medical costs, social costs, and taxes.
Hillary is telling her rich benefactors, that she is going to raise their taxes. Well, she knows as well as anyone that without tax reform, they will avoid paying those taxes via various tax shifting means. Hillary won't do tax reform because, again "Change is risk" and wealth doesn't like risk.
The way the US is going right now, not increasing taxes on the rich could led to a risky situation indeed, a society that is becoming ever more unstable and unworkable. Whether Clinton will redirect this is speculative, a Trump presidency, with its head completely uninformed and uncaring of such matters, is far less speculative: it would be a disaster.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?