Well, ladies and gentleman the super-power called the United States of America, is a dying dinosaur that Michael Moore or even Jay-Z doesn’t have the power to change. Today was a shock for many, even for me as the American Electorate decided to elect a Demagogue of ill-rhetoric towards certain ethnic groups like the Latin-American, Women and so-on. Donald Trump in his power and commander-in-chief will remarkably create havoc.
All of this is well known, but what the United States’ citizens didn’t think about when they voted against the establishment on protest against the D.C. power-structure they voted for a man with certain traits that can put certain pieces of the Government into shambles. So before I start; for those of you who don’t know, here is the definition of a banana republic!
“It was coined in a 1904 book of fiction by O. Henry, an American writer. Henry (whose real name was William Sydney Porter) was on the run from Texan authorities, who had charged him with embezzlement” (…) “His phrase neatly conjures up the image of a tropical, agrarian country. But its real meaning is sharper: it refers to the fruit companies from the United States that came to exert extraordinary influence over the politics of Honduras and its neighbours. By the end of the 19th century, Americans had grown sick of trying to grow fruit in their own chilly country. It was sweeter and cheaper by far to import it instead from the warmer climes of Central America, where bananas and other fruit grow quickly. Giants such as the United Fruit Company—an ancestor of Chiquita—moved in and built roads, ports and railways in return for land. In 1911 the Cuyamel Fruit Company, another American firm (which was later bought by United), supplied the weapons for a coup against the government of Honduras, and prospered under the newly installed president. In 1954 America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) backed a coup against the government of Guatemala, which had threatened the interests of United. (Historians still debate whether the CIA’s motive was to protect United or, as many now believe, to nip Communism in the bud.) Hence the real meaning of a “banana republic”: a country in which foreign enterprises push the government around” (The Economist, 2013).
Why do I believe this, it’s because of all his sort-of promises over the months. There is all kind of activities that proves the clear indications of a Banana Republic on the rise. The Americans might think otherwise, that is because there are blind on how the state really is.
“The United States recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 104.17 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product in 2015. Government Debt to GDP in the United States averaged 61.94 percent from 1940 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 121.70 percent in 1946 and a record low of 31.70 percent in 1974. Government Debt to GDP in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Public Debt” (Trading Economics).
So the average debt level or ratio is staggering already. This is not tackled because the creditors accept the debt levels are raising, just as seen with the numbers from Trading Economics are showing during 30 years the percentage has gone up over 70 %, which should be frightening to any economy. When you have that level of debt, you should be able to have a heavy tax-base to collect and pay the debt.
Taxing under Trump:
“US taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2012, US taxes at all levels of government represented 24 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 34 percent of GDP for the 34 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)” (…) “The United States collects relatively less revenue dedicated to retirement, disability, and other social security programs—22 percent of total tax revenue—than the 26 percent OECD average” (…) “Property taxes provided more than twice as large a share of US tax revenue—12 percent in 2012—than the OECD average of 5 percent. Almost all revenue from taxes on property in the United States is collected by state and local governments” (…) “The United States relies less on taxes on goods and services (including both general consumption taxes and taxes on specific goods and services) than any other OECD country, collecting 18 percent of tax revenue this way compared with 33 percent for the OECD. The value-added tax (VAT)—a type of general consumption tax collected in stages—is the main source of consumption tax revenue, employed worldwide in 160 countries including all 34 OECD member countries except the United States. Most consumption tax revenue in the United States is collected by state and local governments” (Hoo & Toder, 2006).
So when the Federal and Republic itself has such a giant debt ratio, the taxes should be high and should be to the levels of actually having the ability to pay it back. As they do not even have VAT on goods that is very normal world-wide, but apparently isn’t a thing in the United States. This proves the mismanagement of potential tax-base that the Government need to succeed to pay their debt. This is before the Election yesterday.
This is the taxes planned under Trump: “According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision” (…) “After accounting for the larger economy and the broader tax base, the plan would reduce revenues by between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion after accounting for the larger economy, depending on the nature of a key policy provision” (…) “On a static basis, the Trump tax plan would increase the after-tax incomes of taxpayers in every income group. The bottom 80 percent of taxpayers (those in the bottom four quintiles) would see an increase in after-tax income between 0.8 percent and 1.9 percent, under both policy assumptions. Taxpayers in the top quintile would see a 4.4 percent increase in after-tax income under the higher-rate assumption, or 8.7 percent under the lower-rate assumption. Those in the top decile would see a 5.4 percent increase in after-tax income under the higher-rate assumption, or 9.3 percent under the lower-rate assumption. Finally, taxpayers in the top 1 percent would see the largest increase in after-tax income on a static basis, driven by both the lower top marginal tax rate and the lower corporate income tax. Under the higher-rate assumption this increase would be 10.2 percent, and under the lower-rate assumption this increase would be 16.0 percent” (Cole, 2016).
So when the government are axing it income, while the economy running on a deficit your making no-sense. Your continue to spend on deficit while cutting taxes; the taxed ones are the ones who voted for Trump, the bottom 80% will get higher taxes, while corporations and 1% riches will get less. So the richer will get richer. A real proof of a Banana Republic where the solidarity towards the ones who needs so. They who voted for him is the ones that will pay on his tax-plan, which is ironic.
This is on the direct economic sense, now on health care. Here he proves again he will hurt the ones who voted for him, the poor and what is left of the working-class:
“The policies would cause almost 21 million people to lose their insurance coverage, as the replacement health care policies would only cover 5 percent of the 22 million individuals who would lose coverage upon the repeal of Obamacare. This would almost double the number of Americans without health insurance” (…) “The largest component of this estimate comes from the “repeal.” The campaign website proposes to “completely repeal Obamacare,” which we assume to mean repealing the Affordable Care Act’s regulations, subsidies, Medicaid expansion, Medicare savings, and tax increases. Although repealing the coverage provisions would save about $1.1 trillion, based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates (adjusted for recent legislation and changes in the budget window), repealing the legislation’s tax increases and Medicare cuts would cost a combined $1.6 trillion. In total, this means repeal would cost $480 billion – or $260 billion including the economic benefits of repeal” (Committee for a responsible Federal Budget, 2016).
So the Trump Administration are planning to hurt their own, the ones that has gotten through the Obamacare gotten some sorts of subsidized medical insurance, something he wants to repeal and will even make sure to cost the state more. So the educated minds will know that people has to carry insurance on their own while the state pays more to abolish the Obamacare. The 21 million individuals will regret questioning the medical treatment through Obamacare, as the Federal State will add more money. So the people are getting higher tax for the same 80% who losing their health insurance. Do the American citizens prefer punishing themselves?
As with the true implications of NAFTA:
“Customs duties reductions led to increases in trade with the other two countries of 11% in Canada, 41% in the United States, and 118% in Mexico, for the period between 1993 and 2011.5 In terms of value, American trade with Canada and Mexico increased from US$481 billion in 1993 to US$1.1 trillion in 2015. While Donald Trump claims that Americans “don’t make anything anymore,” implying that NAFTA is to blame, the American manufacturing sector has increased production by 58% since the deal came into effect” (Bedard, 2016).
So the results of NAFTA are apparently different in reality than what comes across when coming to Trump, so the reality hasn’t mattered. He wants to dissolve or change the rules and regulations, this will make it harder to export and import products between Canada and Mexico into the United States. The United States need free-movement of products and industrial products to be able to have the Corporate Capitalism that drives the USA.
So with lower taxes in general, a higher cost of health-care without concern for the 21 million without health insurance. They now are getting more problems with exporting and importing the needed products and raw-material has been possible and even at longest part of the NAFTA agreement has been positive to the US. So the regulation and cooperation with neighbours will be harder because of barriers that will be created with abolishing the NAFTA.
This is still all economic implications… then you have the gun-control, the war-lord aspects and the other social policies mixed with the economic aspect that turns the ones giant and great nation into tatters, if the President Donald Trump gets to do as he pleases without questions.
We should consider it with the implication on the policies and the foreign affairs. The US Government would lose with their plans on playing hardball with NATO and others. With the Muslims ban and deportation, also the Latin-American population that has been singled out; these groups can hurt the economy and also the basic workforce who does the needed services needed in society. That these will be sent out because of their ethnicity and faith will also prove that the United States isn’t the leaders of free-world, but another tyranny under President Trump. The fear and loathing of the Republican President Trump! That will do like the Americans did during Second World-War when Japanese for being so we’re detained into camps, or if he pleases send them packing.
This racial laws and deportations will hurt the economy and make sure the state becomes a Banana Republic; What is special is that the United States will have a free-flow of guns, ammunition, but will make it harder to import goods and also export goods with worse deals, have lesser taxes, still high debt yield and add expenses on health-care while the citizens has to cover themselves. This while the US President hasn’t a plan to help lower-classes as the minimum-pay or salaries increase for the 80% who still get added tax, also pay more for health care. The US Electorate got all reasons for feeling foolish if they even read this.
Bananas and Banana Company we’re President William Howard Taft did what he could to save the companies. Now the new President might try to replicate this, but he forgets the needed international community and production as the needed bolts, tools and manufacturing are inter-connected. That is something that the modern day President Trump needs.
Side Note – International Partnerships:
So if he builds walls, gets into whiny bitch mode and becomes a fully-blown attack paranoid mode, than the international partners will not accept being constantly bullied. I am sure that Philippines C-I-C President Rodigro Duterte will be tossed around for another power or human being. Neither will Russian President Vladimir Putin and even German Chancellor Angela Merkel will not accept it. So the price of him being brash and irresponsible thin-skinned versus the ones that questions his actions or words, isn’t really suitable with the trading partners and allies that the U.S. still needs. The US doesn’t live in a vacuum and not the only one with a giant defence and has much money to spend like on AGOA and others.
So congratulation on becoming a Banana-Republic, ready to become muffled with after playing king-pin… for decades; as your economic prospects under the Trump Administration and regime doesn’t look healthy. Peace.
Bedard, Mathieu – ‘NAFTA: DONALD TRUMP’S CRITICISMS ARE UNFOUNDED’ (07.2016) link: http://www.iedm.org/files/lepoint1016_en.pdf
Committee for a responsible Federal Budget – ‘Analysis of Donald Trump’s Health Care Plan’ (09.05.2016) link: http://crfb.org/blogs/analysis-donald-trumps-health-care-plan
Cole, Alan – ‘Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016’ (19.09.2016) link: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016
Hoo, Sonya & Toder, Eric – ‘The U.S. Tax Burden Is Low Relative to Other OECD Countries’ (08.05. 2006) link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/us-tax-burden-low-relative-other-oecd-countries
The Economist – ‘Where did banana republics get their name?’ (21.11.2013) link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/11/economist-explains-16
Trading Economics – ‘United States Government Debt to GDP 1940-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar’ link: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp