There seems to be some misconceptions about the differing economic policies of democrats and republicans and what they tend to bring about. Both have their positives and their negatives, but the distinction between them is very significant.
The Democrat Way:
As we’ve seen for a while now, this is the way of democratic economics:
-Less focus on “cutting breaks” for powerful, big corporations. More incentives for new business ventures. Focus on urban setting jobs –like technology and energy.
-You end up with less competition among major corporations and more accountability with big companies having to compete with small ones.
-The downside is that as soon as a city starts to flourish with business it at some point reaches its peak, the businesses reach overload, and jobs become scarce there because everything is saturated.
-People then either remain in the city and try to create a business of their own, or they leave to a newer, rising city, like Denver, CO.
In general, this approach does lead to economic improvement. When more people have more money to spend they do so freely; and people sell and get bought from and things circulate well.
The Republican Way:
-Most republicans like the notion of working in a major corporation. They see it as stability where new businesses can rise or fall.
-This leads to benefits and “breaks being cut” for big businesses and companies.
-There is then more competition among big conglomerates, mass hiring and firing, and less room for smaller businesses and entrepreneurship.
-This ultimately leads to less circulation -with most people being in the lower-paying jobs and less people “rising through the ranks” to the higher paying positions. There is also a lot of nepotism that kicks into companies as the people put in charge are often “friends” of those in power rather than qualified for the position.
This leads to few, wealthy people at the top and many people in thankless positions towards the middle and bottom. It’s “stable” but it’s also stagnant.
Trump’s Economic Policy:
Trump favors the republican way, but there’s an issue. His “base” mostly consists of white blue collar Americans from country/rural regions. Democrats tend to focus on making jobs happen in cities and rural setting residence are often left with little work available outside of mom and pop shops.
Trump promised to aid the people of the rural settings by bringing back old industries they work in –like companies that have factories, agriculture, and mineral deposits.
Unfortunately, Trump is also obligated to fulfill stock holders’ demands. As a “business man” his experience has been with wealthier, city-oriented companies.
So the question becomes, who will Trump side with?
Siding with the rich is written in stone. He will ensure their prosperity and tax breaks. He could care less for people in poverty in general. He is oblivious to companies that are gaining great speed and influence like technology and energy. He doesn’t understand rural jobs and why those particular industries are being run out of business (*Hint, they moved to Mexico so they can pay their workers less and make more money for themselves).
So what you have is a mess.
No one will be happy.
Rural people will get screwed over and reap no benefits.
The cities will likely go back to the Bush days of very few businesses in general and only big corporations competing with the other few big corporations with mass lay-offs ensuing.
Entrepreneurship and ingenuity itself will run dry.
And the rich will get richer as the poor get poorer.
Except Trump and the wealthy elite.