Sociology of Globalization Literature Review

“What are the consequences from moving away from nation-based economics toward, a more globalized one?”

Literature Review:
Summary:

In his 2000 Committee for Development Policy Paper “Economic Globalization: Trends, Risks and Risk Prevention”, Che Kiang University Department of Management Dean and Professor and University of Peking Professor and Ph.D. Director Gao Shangquan begins by stating his premise: that economic globalization “reflects the continuing expansion and mutual integration of market frontiers and is an irreversible trend for the economic development in the whole world”.

Professor Shangquan then lists two “enormous risks” posed by the globalization process. The first is that economic globalization has expanded the gap between what Shangquan refers to as “the North and the South”, with fewer than 20 countries benefitting from economic globalization and 80% of capital flowing among the United States and Western European and Eastern Asian countries [Page 4]. Second, Shangquan writes that a “self-fulfilling mechanism” that he calls the “sheep-flocking effect” of international financial markets under open economic conditions strengthens developing countries’ risk of being “concussed” by “unfavorable external factors” of monetary crisis and the “concussion” suffered by developing countries by “weakening their capacity of macroeconomic control and regulation” [Page 5].

Shangquan goes on to recommend three measures to be taken to prevent and “dissolve” the risks of economic globalization to developing countries.

The first is the establishment of an organization for global economic regulation that can play the role of “final lender” all over the world, providing “floating financial relief and support” to restore the confidence of international investors and a regulatory system strengthening the “monitoring and supervision” over financial institutions [Page 6].

The second is a guarantee of growth sharing, making the benefits of the progress of globalization available to every country [Page 7].

The third is strengthening of government functions of protecting intellectual property rights, ensuring legal fulfillment of contracts, and providing infrastructure; a major government role in establishing incentive and constraining mechanisms in line with corporate governance so as to improve efficiency; and a focus of government efforts on stimulating rapid scientific, technological and educational development and increasing investment in developing human capital [Page 8].

In his January 2015 paper, European Council on Foreign Relations and Foreign Policy Center Founder and Director Mark Leonard presents “Seven Challenges to Globalization” from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Moscow Center Director Demitri Trenin, Kyoto University Graduate School of Management Adjunct Professor Takashi Mitachi, United States Alternate Executive Director to the International Monetary Fund and New America Foundation Global Strategic Finance Initiative co-Founder and Director Douglas Rediker, Princeton University Department of Economics Visiting Assistant Professor and Paris Institute of Political Studies Professor of Economics Sergei Guriev, New York University Professor Ian Bremmer and Council on Foreign Relation Maurice Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies Director Michael Levi.

In his June 4, 2010 paper “Issues, Lessons and Future Challenges” for the Brookings Institution, Australian National University John Crawford School of Public Policy Center for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis Professor of Economics, Australian Center for Economic Research on Health Director and Frank Lowy Institute for International Policy Professorial Fellow Warwick McKibbin summarizes the four questions and six themes [Page 2] of a conference convened in Sydney Australia on March 18, 2010 by Australian National University, the Brookings Institution and the Lowly Institute for International Policy.

The first has to do with the nature of infrastructure: the main characteristics of infrastructure that make it special to a country’s economy and the salient features that distinguish it from other factors of production.

The second has to do with the returns to infrastructure investment. McKibbin argues that transport infrastructure in particular facilitates agglomeration economies and helps to realize the returns to agglomeration; helps to create new markets and reduces costs to access markets; and spurs innovation and facilitates the dissemination of knowledge; leading to an increase in living standards and having a disproportionate effect on the incomes and welfare of the poor [Page 3]. He argues that transport infrastructure contributes significantly to the economic efficiency of an economy by lowering prices, reducing the cost of private production, raising productivity, reducing transport costs and lowering inventories [Page 4].

The third has to do with how infrastructure should be provided and the role of the private sector [Page 5].

The fourth has to do with infrastructure in developing countries and whether infrastructure provision should be affected by the stage of a country’s economic development. McKibbin argues that developing countries are particularly aware of their infrastructure needs and that infrastructure helps alleviate poverty and provides an environment in which the poor can grow their way out of poverty: infrastructure investment providing access to energy, clean water and transport may mean the difference between life and death for low-income countries [Page 11].

1.     Bhatia, Karan and Bremmer, Ian, et al. “Geo-Economics: Seven Challenges to Globalization”. World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council. January 2015: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Geo-economics_7_Challenges_Globalization_2015_report.pdf

2.     Henckel, Timo and McKibbin, Warwick. “The Economics of Infrastructure in a Globalized World: Issues, Lessons and Future Challenges”. Brookings Institution. June 4, 2010: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0604_infrastructure_economics_mckibbin.pdf

3.     Shangquan, Gao. “Economic Globalization: Trends, Risks and Risk Prevention”. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Development Policy and Analysis Division Committee for Development Policy. 2000: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp2000_1.pdf

"We Are Both"

In Chapter 18 of his 1798 book “An Essay on the Principle of Population”, English scholar Thomas Malthus wrote:

“The savage would slumber forever under his tree unless he were roused from his torpor by the cravings of hunger or the pinching of cold and the exertions that he makes to avoid these evils, by procuring food and building himself a covering, are the exercises which from and keep in motion his faculties, which otherwise would sink into listless inactivity… The Supreme Being has ordained that the Earth shall not produce food in great quantities until much preparatory labor and ingenuity had been exercise upon its surface…. In order to rouse man into action and form his mind to reason.”

78 years later, on page 120 of his May 28, 1876 autobiography “Recollections of the Development of My Mind and Character”, English naturalist Charles Darwin recalled:

“In October 1838 that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on population and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variation would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of new species.”

The concept that Darwin is describing is what English anthropologist; biologist and sociologist Herbert Spencer would later term in Volume 1 Chapter 3: “The Evolution of Life” of his 1864 “Principles of Biology” as “survival of the fittest”.

21 years after the period Darwin describes, in Chapter 3: “Struggle for Existence” of his November 24, 1859 book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”, he wrote:

“As more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species or with the individuals of distinct species or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”

Darwin concluded his book “On the Origin of Species” by writing:

“Thus from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”

Three years after Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published, in a June 18, 1862 letter to his fellow German philosopher, social scientist and political theorist Friederich Engels, Karl Marx damns Darwin with faint praise:

“I’m amused that Darwin, at whom I’ve been taking another look, should say that he also applies the Malthusian theory to plants and animals, as though in Malthus’s case the whole thing didn’t lie in its not being applied to plants and animals but only—with its geometric progression—to humans as against plants and animals. It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labor, competition, opening up of new markets, inventions and Malthusian struggle for existence. It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omens…in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.”

Marx, the author of the February 1848 “The Communist Manifesto” was a revolutionary socialist. The American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy defines socialism as “An economic system in which production and distribution of good are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.” The Collins English Dictionary elaborates that socialism is “characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity and usually by government determination of investment, process and production levels.”

Whilst Marx was correct that, in his “Origin of Species” Darwin focused primarily on competition ^[3] as being the primary driving force behind evolution, in the more than a century and a half since Darwin’s book was published, scientists in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have increasingly discovered the importance of cooperation ^[1] in the forms of coevolution, coexistence and symbiosis ^[2][5]. From Marx’s perspective, by projecting the infrastructure of his own capitalist society onto the animal kingdom, what Darwin was doing was implying that capitalism such as that found in his native England was the natural state not only of humans but also of all animals and indeed all life. As a revolutionary, challenging the status quo, Marx objected to this as it rendered his movement to make his society communist at the very least quixotic if not futile.

The reality is, of course, that the world seldom if ever operates in such concrete black and white terms. Darwin’s analysis of the animal and plant kingdoms of life displaying a competition for survival reminiscent of the one Malthus described in humans was accurate. But so, as it turns out, was Marx’s belief that cooperation must be just as much a part of the natural world as is competition.

Just as Darwin took the theories Malthus developed for human society and applied them to the natural world, so too can we take this lesson of the natural world and apply it back to human society. Just as nature does not operate in black and white terms, neither does society. The reason why neither Darwin nor Marx was either entirely right nor entirely wrong in their respective perspectives on life is the same reason why neither capitalism nor socialism are an accurate way of describing the most efficacious organization of a socioeconomic system. Just like, as scientists are discovering, the natural world functions through a mixture of equal parts competition and cooperation, so too are the most prosperous and successful socioeconomic systems in the world likewise mixtures of elements taken from both capitalism and socialism.

In his April 5, 2005 book “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century”, Pulitzer-Prize-winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that “Communism was a great system for making people equally poor—in fact, there was no better system in the world for that than communism. Capitalism made people unequally rich.” That is to say, unfettered capitalism often referred to as “vulture capitalism”, results in extreme income inequality and a vast wealth gap between the wealthiest and the poorest. By eliminating private property, as Marx strove to do, wealth inequity is abolished…along with wealth itself…for everyone.

This demonstrates the challenge that is presented by the task of attempting to categorize the phenomenon of socioeconomic globalization as being either a positive or a negative. It is both and it is neither simultaneously. The capitalistic elements of economic globalization can and do lead to drastic wealth gaps between developed first world and underdeveloped third world countries. However, the more distributive or redistributive elements lead to countries that would not have been otherwise being exposed to liberal progressive ideals such as the freedom of expression and leading them out of the oppressive sociopolitical, often theocratic religious institutions that had heretofore retarded their intellectual achievement and societal scientific progress towards joining the post-Enlightenment scientific revolution information age. Each of these has textbook examples in relatively recent history. For the capitalism of economic globalization leading to the systematic and systemic institutionalized exploitation by wealthy countries of the underdeveloped third world, the most obvious case in point is that of the centuries-long transatlantic slave trade from the relatively undeveloped continent of Africa to the Imperialistic kingdoms of Western Europe and their overseas colonies in the Americas. More recently, however, on the other hand, for globalization opening up heretofore closed parts of the world to joining the free world in the information age, perhaps the most transformative instrument of globalization in the known recorded history of civilization is the world wide internet.

The natural world is not wholly, as English journalist Rudyard Kipling described it in his 1894 story “The Jungle Book”: “Red in tooth and claw”, as Darwin portrayed it in his “Origin of Species”. Nor is it, however, as Marx may have wanted, an egalitarian paradise based upon foundations of fundamental universal equality and cooperation. Likewise, socioeconomic globalization is not purely the great equalizer that the Internet and the foundation of organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may make it appear. Neither, though, is it necessarily the great Satan, perpetrator and perpetuator of any and all economic inequalities and iniquities suffered by people of the underdeveloped world.
Nature is both.

Globalization is both.

1. Gatti, Roberto. “Cooperation, Not Struggle for Survival, Drives Evolution”. Tomsk State University. May 12, 2016: http://en.tsu.ru/news/cooperation-not-struggle-for-survival-drives-evolution/
2. Pollack, Jordan and Watson, Richard. “How Symbiosis Can Guide Evolution”. Brandeis University. 1999: http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu/papers/ecal_hsge.pdf
3. Singer, Emily. “Competition May Not Be the Driving Force of Species Diversity After All”. WIRED Magazine. March 18, 2014: https://www.wired.com/2014/03/bird-evolution/
4. Wilson, Edward. “Groups Are the Driving Force of Human Evolution”. Rice University. April 6, 2012: http://news.rice.edu/2012/04/06/groups-are-the-driving-force-of-human-evolution-wilson-says/
5. Zook, Douglas. “Symbiosis as a Driving Force of Evolution”. American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 2013: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267541999_Symbiosis_as_a_Driving_Force_of_Evolution

Fact Check: First Clinton-Trump 2016 Presidential Debate, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, Monday September 26, 2016

• Republican Party Nominee Donald Trump began by stating that China is manipulating its currency.
• This is a lie.
• According to Dartmouth College Amos Tuck School of Business Administration Paul Danos Dean and Earl Daum 1924 Professor of International Business Matthew Slaughter: “Movements in the yuan’s nominal exchange rate do not affect long-term trade flows or jobs in the U.S…Movements in the nominal yuan exchange rate have almost no long-term impact on global flows of exports and imports or on broader considerations such as average wages…Long-term movements in nominal exchange rates often have nothing to do with the evolution of global trade flows.” [15]
• According to George Mason University Professor of Economics and Mercatus Center F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics and Economics Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism Donald Boudreaux: “Movements in the nominal yuan exchange rate have almost no long-term impact on global flows of export and imports or on broader considerations such as average wages…Long-term movements in nominal exchange rates often have nothing to do with the evolution of global trade flows.” [2]
  
• Trump went on to say, on the subject of currency manipulation, that there is “no one in the government to fight”.
• This, too, is a lie.
• “A Treasury report targets five countries in particular: China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Germany…The Treasury report notes China has intervened heavily in forex markets, and the issue has become political as well, with Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump frequently bemoaning China’s undercutting of the U.S. dollar. “ [3]
  
• Trump then stated, “Ford is leaving the United States…Their small car division is leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio…. We have to stop out companies from leaving the United States and, with it, firing all of their people.”
• This is a lie.
• Asked if Ford would cut any United States Jobs as part of its plans to build a new plant in Mexico, Ford Motor Company Chief Executive Officer Mark Fields: “Absolutely not. Zero. Not one job will be lost. Most of our investment is here in the US. And that’s the way it will continue to be…. We will be replacing those products with two very exciting new products so not one job will be lost.” [9] [16]
• According Ford Motor Company Executive Chairman Bill Ford, great-grandson of Henry Ford, Trump’s “basic premise is wrong…We are everything that he should be celebrating about this country…We’ve been adding jobs in the U.S. And we’re the largest manufacturer of cars and trucks in the U.S.” [5] [12]
  
• Trump then stated, “Lowering taxes is a job creator”.
• This is a lie.
• According to the Center for Effective Government, “There’s no relationship between tax cuts and job creation…we find no relationship between tax rates and job creation.” [http://foreffectivegov.org/blog/think-corporate-tax-cuts-create-jobs-think-again] “Our examination of the evidence found no relationship between cutting taxes on corporate profits and job growth… We found no evidence that cutting the tax rate on corporate profits induces firms to create ne jobs in the United States…. Historical trends show no relationship between tax rates and job growth…there is no discernable connection between corporate tax rates and job growth…we have found no evidence that tax holidays or lowering taxes on corporate profits will create jobs in the U.S… The Evidence shows that locking in lower tax rates on corporate profits is not an effective path to increasing jobs in the U.S.” [6] [8] [17]
  
• Trump then stated that, if elected the 45^th President of the United States, he would “create 25 million jobs.” 
• This is a lie.
• In actuality, the Trump economists note their plan will add 18 million new positions to the seven million that would happen anyway. The Congressional budget Office projects employment will rise by 7.1 million over current levels by 2026 amid an increase in the labor force of eight million people. To add 25 million jobs by then, the number of people who seek to work would have to increase more than three times as much as the economists at the budget office think likely. According to Macroeconomics Advisers chairman Joel Prakken, “To achieve such dramatic gains, many jobs would have to come from an increase in labor supply, or an increase in the labor force participation rate at a level that most economists would consider pretty far outside the range of credibility.” The Congressional Budget Office sees the participation declining from the current 62.8 percent level to 61 percent over the next decade. To generate 25 million jobs, the participation rate would need to climb to 66.7 percent. America has only had participation rates that high in the 1990’s and early 200’s.  But even if the percentage of working 25 to 54 year olds returned to its peak in the spring of 2000, that would add only about 5.2 million more potential workers compared with current levels. The 2.5 million new jobs per year is precisely the average increase for the last five years. The Trump plan requires implausible growth rates to create jobs at the same pace the Obama economy has added since 2011. [11]
• According to Mark Zandi from Moody’s Analytics, the only way for Trump to reach his jobs target is if he “more than doubles immigration.”
• “In the absence of immigration, those demographic trends are going to be impossible to replicate.” Said Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Chief Economist Chad Stone. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin estimated Trump’s promise to close the door to new immigrants if he wins the election and immediately deport millions of undocumented workers would actually shrink the labor force of U.S. workers by 6.4 percent. [13]
• A deep analysis of the positions Trump has taken from the nonpartisan Peterson International Institute of Economics attempted to quantify the impact of Trump’s proposed trade policies. The Institute’s review of the proposed trade policies concludes that if a President Trump did what candidate Trump promised, the Republican’s proposals could cost America almost 5 million jobs, plunge the country into a recession and increase illegal immigration from Mexico. [14]
  
• Trump then stated that he built his business empire with a single “very small loan” of a million dollars from his father Frederick Trump.
• This is a lie.
• His father did give him a loan that was indeed just $1 million, though it appears to have happened before Trump entered the Manhattan real estate market in the early 1970’s. Trump’s father made the loan in 1968, the year his son graduated from the University of Pennsylvania. According to the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, that $1 million would be worth $6.8 million in today’s dollars. [10]
• A Wall Street Journal investigation tracked down a 1985 casino license disclosure document that showed Trump owed his father’s companies roughly $14 million, a value of $31 million in today’s dollars. [1]
  
• Trump then stated, about Mexico, that: “they have a VAT tax. We’re on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there’s a tax. When they sell in, automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there’s no tax.”
• This is false.
• According to University of New York Graduate School Distinguished Professor of Economics Paul Krugman “A VAT is basically a sales tax. It is levied on both domestic and imported goods, so that it doesn’t protect against imports, which is why it’s allowed under international trade rules and not considered a protectionist trade policy.” [19]
• According to Tim Worstall, a fellow at the Adam Smith Institute based in the United Kingdom “If I, as a UK company, make something for sale in the UK then I collect VAT from the buyer, and I’ve paid out VAT to my suppliers. But if I export what I’ve made then I do not…this puts me in exactly the same situation as a US company. When I make goods for export I have paid no sales tax/VAT tax on my supplies. Just like the American company. The same is true of imports by that American producer. To the consumer it all looks the same. They have to pay the full VAT whether something is an import or domestically produced…The American, imported goods are treated exactly the same as the domestically produced ones.” [20]
• “Due to WTO rules, Mexican companies and U.S. companies are subject to the exact same taxes.” [4]
• According to Eric Toder of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute Tax Policy Center “These aren’t barriers by any means. What would be considered a trade barrier is if a country like the U.S. imposed taxes on imported goods and services, without subjecting domestic products to those same fees.” [18]
• According to University of Michigan Economics Professor Alan Deardorff “Mexican companies do pay the same VAT tax in Mexico that U.S. companies pay.” [7]

  

1. Arnsdorf, Isaac. “Clinton is Right About Trump’s “Very Small” $14 Million Loan”. Politico. September 26, 2016: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/clinton-is-right-about-trumps-very-small-14-million-loan-228709
2. Boudreaux, Donald. “Slaughtering the Myth of Chinese Currency Manipulation”. American Spectator. January 11, 2016: http://spectator.org/65146_david-bowie-rip/
3. Cox, Jeff. “The US Just Dropped the Hammer on Currency Manipulation”. NBC News. Monday May 2, 2016: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/the-us-just-dropped-the-hammer-on-currency-manipulation.html
4. Edwards, Haley. “Here’s What Donald Trump Got Wrong About Mexico’s Taxes”. TIME Magazine. October 2, 2016: http://time.com/4514685/presidential-debate-donald-trump-vat-tax/
5. Estevez, Dolia. “Debunking Trump: We Have Moved Jobs to Ohio from Mexico, Not the Other Way, Ford Says”. Forbes. October 3, 2016: http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2016/10/03/debunking-trump-we-have-moved-jobs-to-ohio-from-mexico-not-the-other-way-ford-says/#565e61a57720
6. Fischer, Brendan. “Tax Cuts For the Rich Do Not Create Jobs”. Center for Media and Democracy. December 18, 2010: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2010/12/9828/will-cutting-taxes-rich-really-create-jobs
7. Gillespie, Patrick and Luhby, Tami. “Trump’s “Incredibly Misleading” Claim On Mexico”, CNN. September 28, 2016: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/news/economy/trump-mexico-vat-tax/
8. Gumm, Brian and Klinger, Scott, et al. “Lower Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Linked to Job Creation”. Center for Effective Government, December 2013: http://www.foreffectivegov.org/sites/default/files/budget/corp-tax-rate-debate.pdf
9. Harlow, Poppy and Isidore, Chris. “Ford CEO: Donald Trump is Wrong About Mexico”, CNN, September 15, 2016: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/15/news/companies/donald-trump-ford-ceo-mark-fields/
10. Kessler, Glenn. “Trump’s False Claim He Built His Empire With a “Small Loan” From His Father”. Washington Post. March 3, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/03/trumps-false-claim-he-built-his-empire-with-a-small-loan-from-his-father/?postshare=6111474938786594&tid=ss_tw
11. Naroff, Joel. “Why Trump’s Economic Plans Are Unrealistic and Costly”. Philadelphia Inquirer. October 2, 2016: http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20161002_Why_Trump_s_economic_plans_are_unrealistic_and_costly.html
12. Roskopp, Jack. “Ford Has the Best Response to Trump’s Lie Last Night”. Detroit Metro Times, Tuesday September 27, 2016: http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/archives/2016/09/27/ford-has-the-best-response-to-trumps-lie-last-night
13. Schoen, John. “Trump’s 25 Million New Jobs Promise Doesn’t Add Up”. NBC News. Thursday September 15, 2016: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/15/trumps-25-million-new-jobs-promise-doesnt-add-up.html
14. Scotti, Ciro. “How a President Trump Could Cost the US Economy Almost 5 Million Jobs”. Fiscal Times. September 19, 2016: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/09/19/How-President-Trump-Could-Cost-US-Economy-Almost-5-Million-Jobs
15. Slaughter, Matthew. “The Myths of China’s Currency Manipulation”. Wall Street Journal. January 8, 2016: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myths-of-chinas-currency-manipulation-1452296887
16. Snavely, Brent. “Ford CEO Fields Fires Back at Trump: Zero Jobs to be Lost to Mexico”, Detroit Free Press. September 16, 2016: http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/09/15/ford-ceo-fields-fires-back-trump-zero-jobs-lost-mexico/90424974/
17. “Tax Cuts For the Rich Do Not Lead to Growth in Jobs, a Study Says”, Owen Zindar, University of Chicago David Booth Graduate School of Business, National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2015: http://www.ibtimes.com/tax-cuts-poor-middle-class-not-rich-create-jobs-research-shows-1892251
18. Toder, Eric. “A Value Added Tax is Not a Trade Barrier”. Tax Policy Center. September 28, 2016: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/value-added-tax-not-trade-barrier
19. Worstall, Tim. “In the Debate Donald Trump was Simply Wrong About VAT and Mexico”, Forbes, September 27, 2016: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/09/27/in-the-debate-donald-trump-was-simply-wrong-about-vat-and-mexico/#5b260dad38ef
20. Worstall, Tim. “Trump’s Advisers Claim VAT is a Trade Barrier, Subsidy—Flat Out Untrue, Simply Wrong”. Forbes. September 26, 2016: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/09/26/trumps-advisers-claim-vat-is-a-trade-barrier-subsidy-flat-out-untrue-simply-wrong/#46a56f12139c

• When given her chance, former First Lady of the State of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, United States Senator and Cabinet Secretary of the United States Department of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump “rooted for the housing crisis”.
• This is true.
• In 2004, Trump told CNN about the real estate market crash in the late 1980’s: “The real estate markets crashed…I always made a lot of money in bad markets. I love bad markets. You can do very well in bad markets.”
• Trump counseled Trump University students to take advantage of the housing bubble as an investment opportunity. In an interview with Jon Ward for his January 1, 2006 audiobooks “How to Build a fortune: Your Plan for Success from the World’s Most Famous Businessman” and “Bubble-Proof Real Estate Investing” for Trump University, Ward asked Trump “There’s a lot of talk, which you’ve no doubt heard too, about a so-called real estate bubble. What’s you’re take on that pessimism?” Trump answered: “Well first of all, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know, if you’re in a good cash position, which I’m in a good cash position today, then people like me would go in and buy like crazy. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know you can make a lot of money.” [3]
• On May 20, 2007 Trump told the Toronto Globe and Mail that he was ready to invest in real estate because the market was starting to head down and that he was excited for the housing bubble to end because of the money he would make: “People have been talking about the end of the cycle for 12 years and I’m excited if it is. I’ve always made more money in bad markets than in good markets.” [7]
• On February 17, 2009, Trump told Wolf Blitzer of CNN about real estate markets “I can tell you, they’re a hell of a lot lower than they were a year ago or two years ago. And this is a great opportunity… And now I’m saying, I think that this is a good time…I think this is a great time to buy. If you have cash, this is the great time to buy.”
  
• Clinton then stated that Trump’s tax plan “would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion”.
• This is true.
• “Donald Trump’s tax plan could add as much as $24.5 Trillion to the national debt over the coming 20 years unless it is accompanied by steep cuts in spending and entitlement programs, a new analysis finds…The numbers are startling, according to the new report: Trump’s proposals for consolidating and slashing individual and corporate taxes and getting rid of the estate tax would reduce federal revenues by an estimated $9.5 trillion over the coming decade and additional $15 trillion over the subsequent 10 years. And that’s before accounting for the government’s added interest costs from having to borrow substantial sums to make up for the revenue shortfall and keep the government operating.”

• “The Tax Policy Center estimates the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over its first decade and an additional $15 trillion over the subsequent 10 years, before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects.” [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf] 

• “The Center initially estimates that the Trump plan would decrease tax revenues by $9.5 trillion over 10 years. The Center then increases this estimate to $11.2 trillion to reflect the incremental interest that the US Treasury would pay on the additional $9.5 trillion in national debt, since the Trump plan has no cuts in federal spending.” [12]
• “Over 10 years, the Center projected, Trump’s policies would increase the debt by $11.2 trillion. Over 20 years, they would increase the debt by $34.1 trillion. In its report, the Center found that “including interest costs, the proposal would add $11.2 trillion to the national debt by 2026 and $34.1 trillion by 2036.”  [5]
• According to Robert Pozen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alfred Sloan School of Management “the Trump plan increases the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion or $12 trillion, according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment… However, even under dynamic scoring, which takes into account a broad range of macroeconomic effects of tax proposals, his tax cuts would still expand that federal deficit by $10 trillion, on top of the $10 trillion increase in the deferral deficit already projected under current law…In a recent report based on current law, the CBO estimates that the cumulative deficit will be $9.4 trillion between 2017 and 2026. [https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51129-2016Outlook.pdf] This would bring the total national debt to approximately $30 trillion, without the tax cuts in the Trump plan.” [13]
• “The gross national debt is projected to rise from $19 trillion today to $29.1 trillion by 2026, or a 50 percent increase, according to government estimates…The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the non-partisan fiscal watchdog group that has been taking the lead in tallying up the costs of the Presidential candidates’ proposals, has previously estimated that $14 trillion in publicly held debt would rise to $23.9 trillion by 2026 under Clinton’s plans for raisin taxes and boosting domestic spending…Yet under Trump’s  tax cut and spending plan, gross debt would rise to %39.5 trillion by 2026, or an astounding doubling of the current $19 trillion figure, according to a new study by the CRFB [http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/CRFB_Promises_and_Price_Tags.pdf http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/Promises_and_Price_Tags_Preliminary_Update.pdf]…The gross national debt as a share of the overall economy is expected to remain relatively flat over the coming years, with a slight uptick from 104 percent of GDP this year to 105 percent by 2026, according to the study…Under Trump’s plan, by comparison, it would rise to 143 percent of GDP.” [11]
• “A new Washington study says Donald Trump’s tax and budget plans would make the national debt skyrocket by $10 trillion or more over the coming decade, mostly because of his ambitious and expensive tax cuts…All told, Trump’s policies would result in the $19.3 trillion national debt spiking to 127 percent the size of the U.S. economy by 2026…The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Democrat Hillary Clinton’s agenda, which relies on tax increases to pay for proposals such as making the Affordable Care Act more generous, would increase the debt by about $250 billion over 10 years…Clinton’s plans would closely track current law, in which the debt would equal 86 percent of the economy.” [2]
• “Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s tax plan would cost an eye-popping $12 trillion over 10 years, according to a new estimate that runs directly counter to the billionaire’s pledge not to increase the deficit”:
• ”Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis…Our analysis finds that the plan would reduce federal revenues by $11.98 trillion over the next decade…Overall, the plan would reduce federal revenue on a static basis by $11.98 trillion over the next ten years” [http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/TaxFoundation_FF482_0.pdf]
• “The conservative Tax Foundation also scored it using a model that assumes supply side conservative theories of economic growth are correct and found it still would add $10.14 trillion to the deficit: ”After accounting for increased incomes due to these factors, the plan would only reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion.” [14]
  
• Clinton further stated that Trump’s tax plan would “lose 3.5 million jobs”.
• This, too, is also true.
• “Mark Zandi, a well-respected economist, did issue a report saying that if Trump’s economic plans were fully implemented, 3.5 million jobs would disappear, incomes would stagnate, debt would explode and stock prices would plummet…His report also said that if Clinton were able to fully implement her economic plans, the economy would add an additional 3.2 million jobs during the first four years of her Presidency. Combined with anticipated job creation under current law, that adds up to 10.4 million jobs.” [8]
• According to the University of Pennsylvania School for Communications Annenberg Public Policy Center “Moody’s forecast that if Trump were able to implement all of his proposed policies, the economy would suffer an extended recession and result in 3.4 million job losses over the course of Trump’s Presidency…If his policies were fully implemented, Moody’s predicts the economy would suffer an extended recession beginning in early 2018. The policies would also result in 3.4 million job losses over the course of Trump’s Presidency. Moody’s Analytics concluded that if Clinton were to fully implement the plans she has outlined in her campaign, the economy would add 10.4 million jobs during Clinton’s Presidency. That’s 3.2 million ore than it projects would be added under current law.” [4]
• “The downturn under a President Trump would last longer than the Great Recession. The Republican Presidential Nominee’s policies would result in an economic downturn that would last longer than the Great Recession. About 3.5 Million Americans would lose their jobs, unemployment would jump back to 7%, home prices would fall and the stock market would plummet, Moody’s predicts…. Hillary Clinton’s plans for the economy would boost growth and create millions of jobs, according to a new analysis. Moody’s Analytics estimates that if the Democratic Presidential Nominee’s Proposals are enacted, the economy would create 10.4 million jobs during her Presidency, or 3.2 million more than expected under current law.” [9]
  
• Clinton then stated that Trump believes climate change to be a hoax.
• This is true.
• On March 28, 2012, Trump stated on Twitter, “Global warming had been proven to be a canard repeatedly over and over again.”
• On November 1, 2012, Trump stated, “Let’s continue to destroy the competitiveness of our factories and manufacturing so we can fight mythical global warming.”  On November 2, 2012, he wrote, “Global Warming is based on faulty science and manipulated data.” On November 5, 2012, he stated, “We can’t destroy the competitiveness of our factories in order to prepare for nonexistent global warming.” On November 6, 2012, he stated “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” [10]
• On March 25, 2013, Trump wrote, “They changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change” after the term global warming just wasn’t working anymore.”
• On April 23, 2013, he wrote, “Used to be called global warming and when that name didn’t work, they deftly changed it to climate change, because it’s freezing!”
• On May 25, 2013, he wrote, “It’s called “climate change”. No, they changed it to “climate change” when “global warming wasn’t working anymore, too cold!” On May 25, 2013, he wrote, “It’s 45 and snowing in New York on Memorial Day, tell the so-called “scientists” that we want global warming right now!” 
• On June 26, 2013, he stated, “Obama’s speech on climate change was scary. It will lower our standard of living and raise costs of fuel and food for everyone. China loved Obama’s climate change speech yesterday. They laughed! It hastens their takeover of us as the leading world economy.”
• On November 23, 2013, he wrote, “The people that gave you global warming are the same people that gave you ObamaCare! They changed the name global warming to climate change because the concept of global warming just wasn’t working!”
• On December 5, 2013, he stated, “The problem with the concept of “global warming” is that the U.S. is spending a fortune on “fixing it” while China and others do nothing”. On December 6, 2013, he stated, “Global warming is total and very expensive hoax! We should be focused on magnificently clean and healthy air and not distracted by the expensive hoax that is global warming!” On December 14, 2013, he wrote, “Are we still wasting billions on the global warming con?” On December 15, 2013, he wrote, “The “global warming” name isn’t working anymore, sorry! They call it “climate change” now because the words “global warming” didn’t work anymore. Same people fighting hard to keep I all going!” On December 16, 2013, he stated, “John Beale, the top person in the government on climate change, is a total fraud”. On December 19, 2013, he stated, “John Beale, the man who headed up Climate Change for the government, is a proven con man and total phony.” On December 28, 2013, he wrote, “We should focus on clean and beautiful air, not expensive and business closing Global warming, a total hoax! The global warming scientists don’t want to be airlifted off the ship, they are having too much fun and that is too simple a solution, fame!” On December 30, 2013, he wrote, “What the hell is going on with Global Warming. The Planet is freezing, the ice is building and the G.W. scientists are stuck, a total con job. The con artists changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change when Global Warming was no longer working and credibility was lost!” [1]
• On January 1, 2014, Trump wrote on Twitter, “This very expensive Global warming bullshit has got to stop.” On January 2, 2014, he wrote, “You know its actually called Climate Change, right? That’s only because Global Warming wasn’t working!”
• On the Fox News Channel network on January 6, 2014, Trump called climate change a “hoax”: http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/01/06/fox-regular-donald-trump-decries-climate-change/197432  [5] [16]
• On January 25, 2014, he wrote on Twitter, “Is our country still spending money on the global Warming hoax?” On January 26, 2014, he stated, “Don’t forget. “Global warming” can also mean Earth is getting colder! That way they cover both sides of the fence! Any and all weather events are used by the Global Warming hoaxers to justify higher taxes to save our planet!” On January 29, 2014, he stated, “Global Warming is an expensive hoax! The weather has been so cold for so long that the global warming hoaxers were forced to change the name to climate change to keep the $ flow! Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air, not the same old climate change bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.”
• On February 5, 2014, he stated, “Smart that Global Warming hoaxers changed name to Climate change!” On February 17, 2014, he wrote, “Don’t let the Global Warming wise guys get away with changing the name to Climate Change because the facts do not let GW tag to work anymore! It’s not climate change it’s global warming. Don’t let the dollar sucking wise guys change names midstream because the first name didn’t work. Secretary of State John Kerry just stated that the most dangerous weapon of all today is climate change. Laughable”. On February 18, 2014, he wrote,  “Whether Global Warming or Climate change. The fact is we didn’t cause it. We cannot change it.”
• On March 4, 2014, he posted “Global warming con!”
• On July 14, 2014, he wrote, “They only changed the term to Climate Change when the words Global Warming didn’t work anymore. The only global warming that people should be concerned with is the global warming caused by nuclear weapons because of out weak U.S. leader”. On July 16, 2014, he wrote, “Lucky they changed the name from global warming to climate change, G.W. just doesn’t work!”
• On September 9, 2014, he stated, “Windmills are the greatest threat in the US to both bald and golden eagles. Media claims fictional “global warming” is worse.” On September 17, 2014, he posted, “Great article on so-called climate change, formerly known as global warming.”
• On November 18, 2014, he stated, “Just like Jonathan Gruber viciously lied and called Americans “stupid” on ObamaCare, many consultants are doing the same on Global Warming. There are many Jonathan Gruber types selling the global warming stuff, and they really do believe the American public is stupid.” On November 19, 2016, he wrote, “For those that constantly say that “global warming” is now “climate change”, they changed the name. The name global warming wasn’t working”. [15]
• Trump told CNN in September 2015 “I don’t believe in climate change”: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/24/donald-trump-i-dont-believe-in-climate-change/

1. Adler, Ben. “Donald Trump Says Global Warming is a Chinese Hoax. China Disagrees.” Mother Jones. September 29, 2016: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/china-climate-change
2. Associated Press. “Donald Trump’s Budget Plan Would Add $10 Trillion in Debt”. CBS News. June 27, 2016: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trumps-budget-plan-would-add-10-trillion-in-debt/
3. Diamond, Jeremy. “Donald Trump in 2006: “I sort of hope” real estate market tanks”. CNN. Thursday May 19, 2016: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/donald-trump-2006-hopes-real-estate-market-crashes/
4. Farley, Robert and Gore, D’Angelo, et al. “Clinton’s Economic Speech”. Annenberg Public Policy Center. August 11, 2016:  http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/clintons-economic-speech/
5. Jacobson, Louis. “According to Analysts, Donald Trump Would Increase Debt by $30 Trillion”. Poynter Institute School for Journalism. Wednesday July 27, 2016: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/27/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-says-donald-trumps-plan-would-add-30-tri/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/13/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-according-analysts-donald-tru/
6. Jacobson, Louis. “Yes, Donald Trump Did Call Climate Change a Chinese Hoax: What Donald Trump Said About the Chinese Inventing the “Hoax” of Climate Change”. Poynter Institute School for Journalism. Friday June 3, 2016: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/24/bernie-s/yes-donald-trump-really-did-tweet-climate-change-h/
7. Jaffe, Alexandra. “Trump in 2007: “I’m excited” for Housing Market Crash”. NBC News. May 23, 2016: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-2007-i-m-excited-housing-market-crash-n578761
8. Lee, Michelle. “Fact Check: Clinton’s Claim on the Impact of Trump’s Tax Plan Versus Her Plan”. Washington Post. September 26, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-clintons-claim-on-the-impact-of-trumps-tax-plan-versus-her-plan/
9. Long, Heather. “Moody’s: Trump’s Plans Would Cost 3.5 Million Jobs”. CNN. June 21, 2016: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/news/economy/donald-trump-economy-jobs/
10. Ohlheiser, Abby. “Trump Didn’t Delete His Tweet Calling Global Warming A Chinese Hoax”. Washington Post. September 27, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/09/27/trump-didnt-delete-his-tweet-calling-global-warming-a-chinese-hoax/
11. Pianin, Eric. “Trump Fumes Over $19 Trillion National Debt, But His Plan Would Double It”. Fiscal Times. July 28, 2016: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/28/Trump-Fumes-Over-19-Trillion-National-Debt-His-Plan-Would-Double-It
12. Pianin, Eric. “Trump’s Tax Cuts Would Add $24.5 Trillion to the Debt”. Fiscal Times. December 23, 2015: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/23/Trump-s-Tax-Cuts-Would-Add-245-Trillion-Debt 
13. Pozen. Robert. “Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Could Land America $10 Trillion Deeper in Debt”. Brookings Institution. Monday March 7, 2016: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/donald-trumps-tax-plan-could-land-america-10-trillion-deeper-in-debt/
14. Sarlin, Benjy. “Tax Group: Trump Tax Plan Would Cost $12 Trillion”. NBC News. September 29, 2015: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/tax-group-trump-tax-plan-would-cost-12-trillion-n435666
15. Schroeder, Robert. “Trump Denies Saying Climate Change Was Chinese hoax, and is Contradicted By His Own Twitter Account”. Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2016: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-tried-to-deny-he-said-climate-change-was-chinese-hoax-but-he-was-felled-by-his-own-twitter-account-2016-09-26
16. Schulman, Jeremy. “Did Trump Call Global Warming A Chinese Hoax? Yes. And Tonight He Lied About It”. Mother Jones. September 26, 2016: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/trump-global-warming-hoax
17.