>Trump
>will likely not become the nominee because the establishment hates him and delegates are unbound after the first ballot
>even if he does, will not likely win the general election, as most polls show Clinton/Bernie defeating him
>then even if he does pull through and win, his policies will ruin the country economically and America will not be "great again"
How will /pol/ react when either of these three take place?
>enforcing the law costs money
no shit
>>65684333
>it's okay when trump does it
>>65684193
you have no idea how much people work under the table just to compete with these fucking thieves. those numbers are just as much a fantasy as 5% unemployment
>>65684486
Yes, and? Everyone isn't equal.
>>65684193
How are these numbers found? Illegals are undocumented and don't pay taxes anyways.
>>65684193
>GDP is the only thing that matters, goy!
>>65684193
GDP is utterly meaningless. It doesn't matter at all. All it really measures is "amount of money moving around" and that *includes* money spent by welfare recipients, and government spending.
OBVIOUSLY if we lose several million people, GDP is going to go down, because less people means less money needs to move around, less government spending, less welfare, etc. etc.
However, this isn't a bad thing at all for the people left behind, and in fact, can be a great thing. With a reduced supply of workers, the power of the average worker goes up (supply and demand, fewer workers means more demand for the ones that remain), which means their wages can go up too.
Plenty of really great, small European countries have smaller GDPs than the U.S., because they have smaller populations, yet their lives are better than ours. Having a smaller GDP is totally meaningless.
>>65684193
The GDP meme is for keynesians.
>>65684666
>all jobs occupied by illegals magically remain in a void where nobody else wants to fill them
>every company that uses illegal immigrants goes bankrupt
probably something like that
>>65684847
Like that Cucky Sanders guy that calls himself a socialist.
>>65684766
>supply and demand, fewer workers means more demand for the ones that remain
Fewer workers also means less demand for goods, because those people aren't around consuming anymore, which in turn means less demand for work.
Learn economics before spewing shit about it.
>>65685339
Wtf are you talking about? We don't produce any goods except food.
>>65685863
>the only thing people spend money on is food
>>65684193
>they think Americans won't fill the workforce gap when illegals are removed
kek
>>65684193
>Look at Graph
>.0000001 sec into looking at graph
>This is some chocolate covered horseshit
Source? Method of reasoning? Factors?
Does being a liberal retarded American make life harder?
>>65686101
It's not about spending money, you said fewer workers means less demand for goods. At most there are 10 million illegal workers which would be deported to central america mostly, their contribution to demand is miniscule. Since america doesn't have a large manufacturing base, why should we expect a hit in consumption? China will simply export more to central america, or those countries will see an increase in domestic demand. But this is all outside the main point, who should america prioritize GDP or a small hit to demand over the law and it's own people?
>>65684193
If Trump loses the nomination, there's going to be riots.
If trump loses the race, there will be a revolt.
If Trump drops out or gets assassinated against Hillary, there will be a war.
>>65686676
>over 10 million consumers contribute next to nothing to demand
>>65687414
You didn't answer my question at all, you post autists and dodge the query. Mexicans buy cheap chinese goods like everyone else, not expensive american products. How many mexicans shop at whole foods or upscale boutiques compared to walmart? They can import those same goods in central america, the demand wouldn't affect america on a per capita basis. The demand goes to mexico, per capita we may see an increased demand because natives are wealthier on average. And again, I'll ask if anyone knows why america should prioritize illegal immigration and nominal GDP over it's own people and the law?
>>65687414
10 million consumers
At or below min wage
Most on welfare
Pay 0 in property taxes
Subsidized by ER healthcare
We can do without them, were not losing 10 million median income consumers, stop pretending to know econ
>>65688048
There is no reason, that assholes just trying to get a rise from you. People who think illegal Mexicans will contribute more to the economy than the 16 million unemployed AMERICANS don't really know what they're talking about
>>65687414
>10 million people will just die
fuck off you ignorant shit
>>65688836
His first post was serious though and he's not alone in saying those things. I wanted to know why people repeat the consumption line because it's a popular one that makes no sense in the big picture.
>>65689605
Agreed, I was just backing you up. Most people are financially illiterate, willfully ignorant, and laughably misinformed in our day and age. I've had to explain a lot of what's going on in the election with fiscal policy to many of my friends with either a bachelors or associates in their respective fields. Usually once you lay things out rationally, people tend to understand the reality of the situation
>>65688048
china doesn't profit from its goods, most companies are american who have their shit made in china. This level of retardedness is unprecedented.
>>65689818
yes of course
just a free service by your friendly neighborhood chink
>>65685339
You do know that exports are a thing, right?
>Trump is elected
>destroys the world economy
>Republicans never win the presidency ever again.
>>65687414
Not an argument.
>>65690435
sounds realistic
going on almost a 10 year depression now and he'll make it so much worse.
>>65690565
>going on almost a 10 year depression now and he'll make it so much worse.
And Republican free market economics would make it far far more worse.
>>65685339
They were purchasing those goods on government welfare.
This graph is complete shit because it assumes all of the money that's saved through taxes deductions won't go towards purchases by the originators of the tax burden.
>>65690607
>More proof that the income of illegals is HIGHLY supplemented by tax dollars.
The only thing that will change in regards to GDP is who is purchasing these items. Expect more luxury purchases with more tax dollars in American wallets.
>>65684193
Nice source. Also
>debt driven GDP "growth"
stay cucked Keynes
>>65690607
>>65690604
>>65690565
>>65690435
Shills in full force in the thread now
>hey guys look over here, don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain
>>65684193
I can't speak for America
but in the UK we make a net profit from immigration.... that's an average of all immigrants but what they don't say is
70% Bangladeshi's are in poverty
60% Pakistani
50% African
40% Indian
European immigration has lower poverty rates than average - this is where the profit comes from
3rd world immigration sucks but 1st word immigration is good
I assume that the same thing applies to America. Any immigration from the 3rd world is probably having bad effects on the economy but 1st world immigration cancels it out and makes your economy a profit
I imagine that data you show is the data for the whole average gdp increase from immigration, it's likely that 3rd world immigrants are a net drain on your economy so your GDP will probably increase
It's easy to misrepresent statistics
>>65691372
I forgot to say
If so many 3rd world immigrants are in poverty than how could they possibly be giving a net increase to the economy
>>65691165
How am I a shill? I'm saying that these projections assume an overwhelming loss of income when that income is mostly supplemented through tax dollars.
>Of course, tax benefit programs have their own overhead where only 30% of the money paid in is actually given to the recipient.
>>65690607
My bad, not a shill
>friendly>>65690688
fire.jpeg
>>65691528
My bad I'm on my phone clicking through stuff
>>65691550
I rescind:
>>65691528
Glad I'm not the only one that can see through this absurd bullshit. These graphs prey on people that have little to no knowledge of how our welfare system works.
This graph just shows the "why," but doesn't explain the "how." They realize by assuming that welfare reform wouldn't be coupled with illegal immigration reform(deportation) that you have a shit ton of money just being thrown at the government that will be spent on nothing.
>>65691678
However, they don't bother explaining that, while GDP would drop (if no welfare reform is made) our national deficit (and possibly debt) would drop as well.
However, that's unlikely, as the entire selling point of deportations is to strengthen the US economy. The lowered tax burden should be carried to the citizen by lower tax rates.. and thus higher luxury spending.
Of course GDP would go up if you open the floodgates, GDP is literally just a measure of all the economic activity inside a country
More people = More GDP
Thinking growth in GDP is ALWAYS a good thing shows you nothing about GDP actually is.
GDP would grow, hell GDP per capita might even go up because the rich would continue to make bank off the backs of illegals but real wages would continue to stagnate or even go down and all the expense of national sovereignty and destruction of culture.
>>65684766
Are you being serious right now?
GDP "size" isn't that important, but it is important if GDP DECREASES. Orkun's Law states that GDP and employment are related.
Also, populations actually increase wages.
When you have a class of people that earn lower wages for jobs that are generally undesirable (high supply, low demand), then that actually INCREASES wages for higher-level jobs.
Yeah, GDP matters. It isn't everything. But yeah, it matters.
>>65684193
Isnt the country already ruined economically? How could the US be any worse than it is right now in every regard?
>>65684193
>even if he does, will not likely win the general election, as most polls show Clinton/Bernie defeating him
I never understood people claiming this and thinking other Republican candidates can beat them when they can't even beat Trump
>>65684766 >>65685339 >>65692896
Two economists were walking down the street one day when they passed two large piles of dog shit.
The first economist said to the other, "I'll pay you $20,000 to eat one of those piles of shit." The second one agrees and chooses one of the piles and eats it. The first economist pays him his $20,000.
Then the second economist says, "I'll pay you $20,000 to eat the other pile of shit." The first one says okay, and eats the shit. The second economist pays him the $20,000.
They resume walking down the street.
After a while, the second economist says, "You know, I don't feel very good. We both have the same amount of money as when we started. The only difference is we've both eaten shit."
The first economist says: "Ah, but you're ignoring the fact that we've increased GDP by $40,000!"
