Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump has pledged to put America first, suggesting that the countrys estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants should be deported and flatly rejecting the concept of globalism. But because of the potential economic consequences of these stances, a group of business economists is now flatly rejecting him.
A policy survey of National Association for Business Economics (NABE) members released Monday shows that 55% of business economists feel that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would do the best job as president of managing the U.S. economy. The candidate with the next-largest percentage of the vote was Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson: 15% of NABE members said hed do the best job managing the economy. Another 15% or respondents said they didnt know who would be best or that they didnt have an opinion.
Just 14% chose Donald Trump.
The survey results are remarkable because NABE members arent your average ivory tower-dwelling, left-leaning egg heads. They work for businesses, trade associations and government agencies across the country. As NABE director and survey chair LaVaughn Henry put it, these are people who have skin in the game.
Youre speaking of people who advise business leaders on day-to-day and long term issues where the outcome has to be one way or the other, it cant just be, lets study it or research it forever, he told FORBES in a recent interview. These are people who are actually helping to make decisions of do we produce here, or do we produce oversees; do we consume more, consume less.
Henry posited that one of the reasons a group of conservative-to-moderate business economists overwhelmingly chose Clinton over Trump is that a definitive plan has been out there for months to stew over and study and make decisions about. Its one thing to say, this is my plan, A-B-C-D, versus, just trust me.
Its not just Trump the candidate that failed to gain traction with the 414 members NABE polled; its many of his ideas. On immigration, just 8% of respondents said they favor deportation of all undocumented immigrants (a keystone Trump policy); 80%, meanwhile, said they believe the government should expand visa programs, like the H-1B program, for high-skilled workers, and 64% said they favored a legalization process for undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. When asked broadly how the next administration and Congress should be towards immigration, 61% of NABE members said the government should be more relaxed as to allow for increased immigration.
On issues of trade, 65% of NABE members say the next presidential administration should be more open and free; Trump, meanwhile, has offered a more protectionist vision for the future. Forty-seven percent of business economists said the U.S. should approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement in its current form and other 30% said the U.S. should seek more favorable terms first and then adopt the pact; Trump has called the TPP a horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble.
Henry said that NABE members fundamentally disagree with that view. Business economists recognize value of trade to the economy, he said. The Pacific Asian theatre is so growth-oriented and will be for decades that we shouldnt cut off our hand before we put it in the pot. That said, he understands why the TPP has become such a big issue this election cycle. When you dont have a job because of trade, unemployment to you is 100%, he said.
The August 2016 survey marks the first time since 1992 that NABE directly asked its members about their presidential preferences. Back then, 59.5% said that then-president George H.W. Bushs policies would be better for maintaining stable growth but they also (correctly) predicted that Bill Clinton would win the election.
By NABEs own estimation, the only other two times presidential politics factored into an economic outlook survey was 2004 (when members said they wouldnt change their economic forecasts whether George Bush or John Kerry were elected) and 2008, when respondents similarly said that the elections victor would not materially affect GDP growth over the coming two years.
The August 2016 economic policy study is not the first time Trump and Clintons economic plans have come under economists scrutiny. A pair of analyses from Moodys recently found that Trumps proposals could potentially raise the deficit and hurt GDP growth, while Clintons had the potential to spur economic growth and lower unemployment.
Whether or not Trump is elected, the damage might already be done: 62% of NABE respondents said that uncertainty about the presidential election is holding back economic growth somewhat or significantly.
Any introduction of increased risk, increased uncertainty, questions of will I have a job next year, or will I not? really does factor into peoples buying decisions. You see these broad groups pulling back, saying lets just wait to spend, lets see where things go, Henry said. Our survey didnt say it, but others have said, if one of the candidates wins, we may be in for a recession. I wont say who, I wont name names, but people are saying. Many people are saying.
(no message)
Come on, you have the your Lower Manhattan suit wearing agenda of sucking the financial life blood from the average investor - Any regulation of the financial world means you hate that politician or legislator no matter whom it may be.
...was repealed under Bill Clinton after all.
Hillary was promised the presidency for shutting up while Bill shit on her. That's her qualification.
She will collect on what's coming to her...and we will all suffer as a result.
frankel, though right is not right about where NAFTA came from. But yes, Bill's biggest failure was to continue with NAFTA.
The deal was cut long ago for not taking down Bill. She'll finally get her payoff...at our expense.
Can see that makes you moist...sorry that it rankles you that I won't join in the coronation celebration.
Save it for the dummies please.
EVERYTHING these people do is quid pro quo and a thinly veiled payoff. Who is the dummy here?
She must be the Queen fuckin'Bee of money mongering - a Goddess!
It's like Bovzo bemoaning the ACA and not wanting the Public Option or a Single Payer system when he knows insurers rip him and his family off on their health at every pass - .
So save the Bullshit for the stupid people - like Bovzo
I've told you I don't like Trump. Neer have, never will. You don't buy i,t fine.
My point is that Hillary is and will be damaging to this nation. She should never be considered. People who wish to celebrate her (get a mirror) are fools of the highest.
If she were a Republican you'd eviscerate her for her past acts. Here you're willing to forgive everything and throw down rose petals because you covet the agenda she's paying lip service to.
I didn't say you're a Trump fan - just your over the top BS on HRC is just silly knowing the money grubbing biz your in.
Noone said don't like her but please save the holier than thou crud.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
These people are fucking shameless.
paycheck. Wonder why?
(no message)
(no message)
.
or see what Soros has to say about how to being down the economy.
Better yet, read HRC's college thesis praising Alinsky on how to fundamentally change America.
(no message)
(no message)
Sure, you can keep the current companies here, or make them pay up to leave. And it plays well to the left wing base. But hasn't anybody else realized that you'll put an end to new companies forming here?
I worked for a large French conglomerate for 12 years. The CEO wouldn't put ANY new investment in France because of their draconian anti-business laws. So you have one of the top dozen or so companies in France making essentially zero investment in their home country. Sure seems like a great idea to me.
Politicians don't realize how easy it is to move a factory. Most factories are movable. The companies that stay around a long time (not just decades, but centuries) are always shopping jurisdictions, and not just for new development. I've seen entire factories put on trucks and then boats and sent to China or Mexico from the US...sometimes because the unions have priced themselves out of a job...sometimes because of taxes...usually both. A good union job used to be Ford. Now, it is Jack in the Box. We can't reduce union wages, but we can have more right to work states with fewer regulations and less taxes. That is the only way to keep manufacturing here and incentivize new factories. Instead, the Dept. of Labor (or whomever) will probably make new companies with over 50 employees install 28 different types of bathrooms. (Joke...but with a point.)
The ship has sailed, with all the rats on board.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)