This week we had both Trump and Clinton present their economic plans. Since then we have been inundated with media contrasting and comparing them. We saw it differently. What struck us was how similar the plans were in fact and tone. First of all their shared hostility to trade. Both turned thumbs down on the pending Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement while vowing to upset agreements already in place such as NAFTA. In our series on “More” we pointed out governmental entities can gain “More” in only three ways. 1. Take from someone else  2.Trade for it  3. Innovate. As we have seen, the latter two often go hand in hand.  Before you can talk about how it’s distributed “More” has to exist. If you aren’t creating “More” you are dividing the same old pie with those closest to power grabbing the biggest slices. Without incentive to even maintain, the entity will stagnate or implode. Cuba and Venezuela are just the latest examples. Trade is at the heart of capitalism. Obviously these two have no acquaintance with Adam Smith and David Ricardo. (What do they teach at the Wharton School of Business?).

Both would severely penalize businesses relocating operations beyond our borders. It takes by most estimates more than $100,0000 in invested capital to create the average private sector job. Who would  want to invest in production in the US if like the Hotel California you can check in but never checkout? We’ve historically benefited from foreign investment but this would be an enormous beware sign. The same problem would affect US corporations that hold huge amounts profits overseas that otherwise might take advantage of Trump’s lower Corporate tax rate. The US has already dropped out of the top-tier of countries rated best to do business. This could position us to bring up the rear. How is this a plausible plan to expand employment? Likely it would have the opposite result.

Continue reading