You really show your deep, under-the-surface knowledge and analysis here. It was the Clinton/Greenspan years which fueled the dot com bubble in the 90s, that eventually crashed under Bush, but instead of letting it deflated, the Bush administration came in with stimulus and tax cuts etc. which maintained and inflated the bubble even more, that when it crashed again in 2008, they have none to blame but themselves (sources: , . ). The bubble that Trump has inherited from Obama (source: [ 4 ] ) is even bigger than the previous one, and it will be interesting to see how his admin. deals with it. It is already promising that he acknowledged the bubble, and is actively goign after the Fed instead of continuing to inflate the bubble like Bush did. He learned from history, and that is a welcoming trait.
Now you’re bunching bc of healthcare with the aforementioned bubble, to prod up ObamaCare to a better light? Overwhelming evidents show that ObamaCare is a disaster (source [ 5 ], [ 6 ]). Has the government ever makes anything cheaper than the invisible hands of the market? Education is an example, look up the university’s cost of attendance before the inception of the Department of Education in 1979, and after.
Please do, youre talking and waving your hand with no hard facts here.
In the short run, the US is benefiting from getting real products in exchange for I.O.U, but when foreign business finally realize that they are stock-pilling water-downed US dollars, the dollar is going to collapse, and prices for commodities will rise.
Trump has been called many things which is subjected of debated, but how is he the Establishment? It’s another useless pejorative, up there with “institutional racism” and the elusive “1%” that has been used so many time, it has lost its meaning. And Hillary is not the establishment herself, being the Sec. of State, backed by every “establishments” there are, most notably the media complex and others thru her “non-profit” Clinton Foundation? If businesses do well with no government-mandated agenda, more people gets hired and have a chance to climb up the ladder, and the lefts treat it as a bad thing somehow. Funny how you mentioned stock-holders as the usual boogiemen, when you know nothing about the ecnomy. CEO’s are paid well bc they are tasked with the responsibilities of creating values, employing people and keep the company to not go broke. Lets do some back of the envelop math here, shall we?
The CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, made $18 millions in his salary in 2016. Microsoft employed 118,000 people in the same year. Now, lets assume that they get pay equally, for $40,000 that year. That would amount to $4.72 billions. With a position where one is often tasked with difficult decisions that may or may not put your company under. That’s a mere 3 percent of the value he’s bringing. And the lefts keep going after these CEO’s when they pay the most tax of all (Trump paid an effective tax rate of 25%, or 38 millions dollars in taxes, in his most recent tax document acquired on Rachel Maddow).
Your post is made up of all the generalization regurgitated by you from the media. Show me some hard-hitting facts and arguments please.