# data[].attributes.headline
A breeding ground for the next Great Depression now exists

# data[].attributes.subject
A breeding ground for the next Great Depression now exists

# data[].attributes.body
"According to the Bank of International Settlements, the relative level of private debt today – whether in global aggregate, in the highly-financialized U.K., and U.S. or in the seven countries highlighted by my colleague Steve Keen, the chief economist at IDEA Economics, as most vulnerable to a debt crisis - is comparable to and, in many cases, worse than in the late-1920s." Paul Gambles March 6 2017. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/06/trump-tax-reform-could-tip-america-into-recession-and-possibly-serfdom.html
This article analyzes the many similarities between what lead to the Great Depression and what is now looking like it can lead to the next Great Depression. The extreme levels of private sector debt in our country currently are too similar or even worse to those pre Great Depression. America can soon be plunged back into extreme poverty and high unemployment rates like never before. (Daken Gulbransen

# data[].attributes.headline
A Look Ahead at the Next Recession (Jane Ewert)

# data[].attributes.subject
A Look Ahead at the Next Recession (Jane Ewert)

# data[].attributes.body
"The odds are better than 50-50 that we will have a recession within the next few years. What does the Fed normally do when that happens? The Fed normally cuts real interest rates by five percentage points"

This article is in the style of an interview. The two people being questioned were Shaun Donovan, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, and Lawrence H. Summers, former Treasury secretary and onetime economic adviser to President Obama. This article connects to The Great Recession because of their discussions about a possible future large-scale recession. The Great Recession is used as an often mentioned reference point in comparison to the modern day's economy. This quote mentions how the Fed cuts interest rates in order to recover a failing economy. This is similar and possibly directly referencing the period of time in the great recession where interest rates were cut to nearly 0, as mentioned in the slide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mr. Porter: What about the politics? How do we overcome gridlock?

Mr. Summers: We need to move from a politics of either/or to a politics of both. I stress some of the problems that I think are most important but I think the argument that there are changes in the corporate tax code that would stimulate investments has some validity. Complaints about excessive regulation that holds back small and medium-sized business have some validity. There are a whole set of issues around stimulating private investment that warrant attention as well.

I believe passionately in more infrastructure investment, but the concerns that government doesn't do it so well are not stupid concerns. There is a bridge right outside my office. It connects Harvard Square with Boston. The bridge is 232 feet long. It has been under repair, with traffic blocked, for four and one-half years. It took 11 months to build the bridge the first time.

You're not going to get a commitment to a public sector-led fiscal policy strategy without also having a strategy that is about private sector activity and private sector investment.

Mr. Porter: Perhaps we can talk about social insurance. One criticism of our current system is that it is excessively tied to work, to provide an incentive to work and to reward work. So it malfunctioned when there was no work to be had. An idea that has been making the rounds, that has the support of even some people on the right, is a universal basic income, which is totally disassociated from work. Is there a case to be made for something like that?

Mr. Summers: As a relevant response to current problems in the current context, I think not. The core problem with the universal income is that, how do you finance it? If you give $5,000 to everybody, that's $1.5 trillion. Now the right-wing view of that is that you're going to get that money by cutting all the existing needs-tested programs, which means that some of the poorest people around are only going to be getting $1,500 so that you and I can get our share of the universal income. I don't think that's a very good idea.

The basic truth is that giving people benefits does influence their behavior. There are a large number of people in our society - little children, people who are 75 years old, people who are disabled - who aren't going to work no matter what. Then there is what you can prudently afford to give to people where there are going to be large incentive effects. So there are a variety of incremental reforms that would broaden eligibility for various existing programs that I would support, but the universal basic income is one of those ideas that the longer you look at it, the less enthusiastic you become.

Mr. Donovan: I think it's important that we are able to re-look at these programs and understand both the short-term costs that there may be and how to design around those, and also the enormously powerful difference in long-run effects.

Literally over decades you are seeing improvements of a third to a half in lifetime earnings from things like housing vouchers or others. If you think of the costs of someone not working, if you think of all the attendant health care, criminal justice and other impacts, the truth is that these investments may actually pay for themselves multiple times over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mr. Porter: What about the politics? How do we overcome gridlock? Mr. Summers: We need to move from a politics of either/or to a politics of both. I stress some of the problems that I think are most important but I think the argument that there are changes in the corporate tax code that would stimulate investments has some validity.

# data[].attributes.headline
The air-conditioning manufacturer had planned to move production at its Indianapolis plant to Mexico, where operations would be cheaper, taking some 1,400 jobs out of the state. Under the deal worked out by the Trump administration — which Vice President-elect Mike Pence took a leading role in shaping — Carrier will keep about 1,000 of those jobs in the state."-Vaughn Hillyard and Phil Helsel (NBC, 2016)

# data[].attributes.subject
The air-conditioning manufacturer had planned to move production at its Indianapolis plant to Mexico, where operations would be cheaper, taking some 1,400 jobs out of the state. Under the deal worked out by the Trump administration — which Vice President-elect Mike Pence took a leading role in shaping — Carrier will keep about 1,000 of those jobs in the state."-Vaughn Hillyard and Phil Helsel (NBC, 2016)

# data[].attributes.body
This article relates to the Great Recession because during those two years many jobs were lost.  This article talks about an air-conditioning manufacturer planning on moving to Mexico, causing many people to loose their jobs and remain unemployed. During the Great Recession, over eight million jobs were lost within two years.
Towards the end of the article, it talks about different ways to help people get jobs and stay employed.  This connects to end of the Great Recession when banks gave large investments of money to get jobs back. (Nina Armstrong

# data[].attributes.headline
Music's impact on the economy (Kathleen)

# data[].attributes.subject
Music's impact on the economy (Kathleen)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.seattle.gov/filmandmusic/music/economic-impact-study
"In 2008, the music industry in Seattle directly creates 11,155 jobs, with 2,618 businesses generating an annual $1.2 billion in sales and $487 million in earnings. Within the larger King County economy the music industry directly creates 20,193 jobs, with $2.2 billion in sales and $840 million in earnings" (Becker).
This direct quote written by Seattle's office of film and music director, coherently dictates the positive impacts the current music industry has had on a city such as Seattle. She describes the impressive creation of jobs and the increase of revenue as a result. With a focus on King County (a city in Washington), this article encompasses reputable statistics that reflect the improvements our current music industry has on our economy. This relates to the roaring 20's (on slide 26) that includes information about the impact jazz had on the economy. At a time of great turbulence in American history, jazz was representative of the American people's strength and potential to overcome. It brought many people together and continued to inspire the country towards greatness and moving forward. Although lacking in specific examples of the way jazz may have improved the economy in numbers, it's certain that jazz (and other popular music at the time) had positively impacted the economy by bringing more people together during a period of urban and industrial growth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bring Jobs "Back" to America from China Doesn't Seem Possible (Hannah Bolandian)

# data[].attributes.subject
Bring Jobs "Back" to America from China Doesn't Seem Possible (Hannah Bolandian)

# data[].attributes.body
"Trump's promise to bring back our jobs from crooked China and ensure that all of our products are made right here in the USA runs completely counter to reality."

This source written by Alternate demonstrates an excellent connection to trade within America and other countries in the past. Although presented as a contradictory statement against trade with other countries at first, the end of the quote turns it around and presents that the reality is that it is necessary for American companies to manufacture in countries such as China in order to protect the economy. President Donald Trump has different views and plans to bring all jobs from China that are in relation to American manufacturing back to America, which thus far in his presidency are not going over smoothly. Although Trump will continue to fight to ensure that all American companies will produce their items in America, it is necessary for the American economy to not plummet and for America's GDP to remain stable for us to utilize the trade opportunities we receive from other countries. On the contrary, bringing in more corporate and manufacturing factories to America would create more minimum wage paying jobs for America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When right-wing commentators are not making bizarre apologies for sexual-assault braggart Donald Trump's "locker room talk," they are praising him for how great he is on trade. Trump talks big about how he will bring back jobs, not let them leave in the first place, and place tariffs on goods made in other countries, punishing corporations that offshore jobs. On this topic, like every other, Trump could be said to be stretching the truth so much it practially violates the Geneva Conventions, as he has been a prime offshorer of jobs on his path to billionaire status and has a well-documented history of treating small businesses and craftspeople like crap.

Much like his other bold policy prescriptions, Trump's promise to bring back our jobs from crooked China and ensure that all of our products are made right here in the USA runs completely counter to reality. His history of outsourcing his products is as long as his history of bankruptcies-in fact, he has previously sung the praises of outsourcing, even promoting outsourcing to students at his fraudulent Trump University.

"Outsourcing Creates Jobs in the Long Run," was the headline of a course description Trump wrote for Trump U in 2005, the same year he boasted to Billy Bush about grabbing women by their genitals. "We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs-how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses," Trump (or his ghostwriter) opened. "But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing."

But it wasn't until an appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman in 2012 when Trump was publically mocked and exposed as a serial and deceptive outsourcer of jobs. Trump was boasting incoherently about his crappy ties and where they were made, when Letterman chimed in and said, "They were made in China and Bangladesh."

So just how much of Trump's products are made overseas? Here's the complete list.
1. Trump apparel
The Donald J. Trump Collection includes ties, suits, dress shirts, eyeglasses and other accessories. Trump shirts were made in China, Bangladesh, Honduras and Vietnam.

The Clinton campaign has pounced on many of these glaring hypocrisies in many ads in several key swing states.
2. Trump home Items
That's right, you can adorn your home with the Trump label and risk your house either being foreclosed or falling into a sink hole. Trump Home offers a variety of items including chandeliers, mirrors, bedding, table lamps, cabinets, sofas, barstools, cocktail tables and more. Reports show that pretty much all of these items are made in a host of foreign countries, including China and Turkey.

The Clinton campaign has jumped on this as well, pointing to a trademark registration for the Trump Home brand that clearly shows picture frames and other home products that were made in India.
3. Trump hotel items
Trump's chain of luxurious hotels and opulent condos are the crowning achievements of his sprawling empire. When he's not going ballistic on Twitter at 3am like a jealous ex, or railing about how the Republican establishment has hung him out to dry, he's constantly boasting about all of his fabulous hotels.

The only problem is that virtually all of his hotel items are made in China and Taiwan.
4. Trump beverages
Nothing quenches one's thirst quite like having to drink something with the Trump label emblazoned across it. I'm referring of course to Trump Natural Spring Water, which is served at Trump hotels, restaurants and golf clubs. Believe it or not, Trump water comes from New York or Vermont, and is bottled in New York.

However, the same can't be said about the hilariously failed Trump Vodka.

Trump Vodka was manufactured at a distillery in the Netherlands, but the distribution company stopped carrying it in 2010. An Israeli company continued to carry Trump Vodka, although the version sold in Israel is different from the original Trump Vodka. The Trump Vodka produced and sold in Israel is made from ingredients that make it kosher for Passover, which made it a popular beverage around the holidays. However, the Jerusalem Post reported that none of the ingredients were actually kosher.

As Hillary Clinton has said at both debates now, Trump lives in his own reality. To be even more precise, Trump appears to be building (or rather paying unqualified Polish immigrants slave wages to build) a wall around reason and truth. His newfound love for America and protectionism runs counter to his years of amassing obscene wealth as a shady businessman. His ability to sell crap to his low-information basket of deplorables and have them screaming for seconds is accomplished purely by playing to their white rage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here Are All of the Trump Products Made Overseas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like everything else about his campaign, Trump's trade talk is a pure scam. When right-wing commentators are not making bizarre apologies for sexual-assault braggart Donald Trump's "locker room talk," they are praising him for how great he is on trade.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Great Depression and the Economy Today

# data[].attributes.subject
The Great Depression and the Economy Today

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-24/greater-depression-comparing-1930s-and-today
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/dep1929.htm
http://work.chron.com/average-yearly-income-middle-class-family-16547.html

When comparing the 1930's to the 2000's, it is evident that many parallels can be drawn between the economy today and the Great Depression. The Great Depression occurred due to a crash in the stock market. From 1929 to 1933 the stock market lost over 90% of its value (Durden). In addition to the fact that the market was failing, "the unemployment rate reached 25%" (Watkins) in 1933. When looking at a Family in the 1930's, their average yearly income was "$2,335, and that put average families in the 1/10th of 1 percent bracket" (Durden). As you compare the economy in the time of the Great Depression to today, it is clear that the economy has stabilized significantly. Now, in 2017,  the unemployment rate is 4.9%. (Tradingeconomics.com). Also, the average yearly income of a median household income in 2012 was $50,054 (Burney). From job unemployment to an average family's income, it is clear that the United States has figured out to do deal with economic inflation.

Daniel Felton

# data[].attributes.headline
But before any of this could take place, the Nazis had to come to power through elections by spreading fear, and promote anti-Semitism through incitement to make non-Jewish Germans turn on their Jewish neighbors. They did it in part through Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels' principle of the "big lie." Told often enough, it will be believed. Trump's repeated claims about New Jersey Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks and his desire to ban a billion people from entering the United States notwithstanding, he is nowhere near the Nazis' plans for a Final Solution. But he is not far from the first steps they took. (Jacob H)

# data[].attributes.subject
But before any of this could take place, the Nazis had to come to power through elections by spreading fear, and promote anti-Semitism through incitement to make non-Jewish Germans turn on their Jewish neighbors. They did it in part through Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels' principle of the "big lie." Told often enough, it will be believed. Trump's repeated claims about New Jersey Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks and his desire to ban a billion people from entering the United States notwithstanding, he is nowhere near the Nazis' plans for a Final Solution. But he is not far from the first steps they took. (Jacob H)

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guest-column-trump-ban-muslims-wrong-article-1.2459376In the early 1940s, approximately 11 million people were viciously murdered by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. The victims were composed of mainly Jews, but also gypsies, homosexuals, disabled individuals, and a few other groups. No person will ever have the words to explain how the world ended up with this such tragedy. Though today, Americans see a pattern with their own 45th President, Donald J. Trump. Trump has first begun with berating Islamic people in his campaigning process. Once he began his four year term, he immediately moved to banning Muslims from seven countries, including refugees from Iraq and Syria. Additionally, hundreds of visas were revoked. Trump also proposed a registry for all Islamic citizens. So even 70 years after the deadly Holocaust, and the world's vow to never let genocide be an issue ever again, we may be seeing another dangerous pattern in our own country.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Fall of The housing market in the Great recession

# data[].attributes.subject
The Fall of The housing market in the Great recession

# data[].attributes.body
"In retrospect, July 31, 2007, was a bad day to go shopping for property anywhere. But the modest 900-square-foot Cape Cod-style home the Vershers bought that day for $137,000, on the eve of the worldwide credit crunch, has fared especially badly, by any standard.Despite being well-kept, with a neatly trimmed lawn and hedges, four bedrooms and a two-car garage, it sits across the street from an abandoned home and was listed for sale in January for just $29,500." ( The Chicago Tribune 2017). In 2007 the housing market crashed due to high risk loans by the bank. At that time people were buying more houses than ever and the housing market was booming. As soon as that crash hit home owners were done for because suddenly their properties were worth nothing. This ruined a lot of people's lives because they had these properties that they paid for with the banks money. And now their properties and they had no way of paying the banks. The market crash still effects people to this day.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-suburban-housing-slump-0327-biz-20160324-story.html

# data[].attributes.headline
The World War II Home Front - Isabella Jagenberg

# data[].attributes.subject
The World War II Home Front - Isabella Jagenberg

# data[].attributes.body
"As the United States produced the weapons of war and became, in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s phrase, the “arsenal of democracy,” the country experienced a fundamental reorientation of economic and social patterns at home that provided the template for the postwar years."

This article describes the effects of World War II and how it helped pull America out of its financial pit. Shortly after the Great Depression, the U.S. became involved in the war, causing a jump start in the economy after money was spent on military defense.  New jobs were created to make weapons and supplies for the military and soldiers on the front lines, so thousands of previously unemployed people went back to work.  President FDR had earlier created the New Deal to help Americans and the economy get up and running again.  A National Defense Advisory Commission, an Office of Production Management, a War Production Board, and an Office of War Mobilization were also all made to control all parts of the war economy. FDR didn't like fired people, so he instead created new departments and agencies to both move the war effort along and keep people with a job. His system worked, and America was mass producing weapons for the WWII effort. Now that men were deployed, blacks and women overcame social injustices, as they were now needed and encouraged to help make supplies for the war. While war is never a good thing, it was a saving grace for the American economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Allan M. Winkler

World War II had a profound impact on the United States. Although no battles occurred on the American mainland, the war affected all phases of American life. It required unprecedented efforts to coordinate strategy and tactics with other members of the Grand Alliance and then to plunge into battle against the Axis powers-Germany, Italy, and Japan. At the same time, it demanded a monumental production effort to provide the materials necessary to fight. As the United States produced the weapons of war and became, in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's phrase, the "arsenal of democracy," the country experienced a fundamental reorientation of economic and social patterns at home that provided the template for the postwar years.

In the economic arena, the war ended the Great Depression. Military spending that began in 1940 to bolster the defense effort gave the nation's economy the boost it needed, and millions of unemployed Americans returned to work to make the weapons of war needed to protect the United States. The renewed prosperity vindicated the theory of English economist John Maynard Keynes, who had earlier argued that sizable government spending could end a depression if the private sector was unable or unwilling to engage in such spending itself.

Mobilization required enormous organizational adjustments. The nation worked closely with businessmen, for, as Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson observed, "If you are going to try to go to war, or to prepare for war, in a capitalist country, you have got to let business make money out of the process or business won't work." Business leaders who had incurred the wrath of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, when they balked at fully supporting New Deal programs, now found themselves invited to Washington, DC, to run the agencies that coordinated production. Paid a dollar a year for their services, they remained on company payrolls, still cognizant of the interests of the corporations they ran. A common pattern, which provided an incentive to business to cooperate, was the cost-plus-a-fixed-fee system, whereby the government guaranteed all development and production costs and then paid a percentage profit on the goods produced.

A huge network of wartime agencies developed to coordinate war production. FDR was never fond of dismantling administrative structures or firing people who worked for him, and so he created one agency after another, with new ones often in competition with old ones, to guide the war effort. That pattern allowed him to play off assistants against each other and to make the final choices himself. There was a National Defense Advisory Commission, then an Office of Production Management, then a War Production Board, and eventually an Office of War Mobilization to coordinate all parts of the war economy.

The system worked. By mid-1945, the United States had produced 80,000 landing craft, 100,000 tanks and armored cars, 300,000 airplanes, fifteen million guns, and forty-one billion rounds of ammunition. It had also produced the world's first two atomic bombs. And while wartime controls disappeared after the war was over, the experience provided a framework for future administrative organization of the economy.

As propaganda came of age, in a new Office of War Information, Americans rose to the challenge of doing whatever was necessary to support the war effort. They bought billions of dollars' worth of bonds to help defray the cost of the war. They saved metals and fats to be recycled into military materiel and collected rubber until the nation successfully produced synthetic rubber, necessary because shipping lanes to obtain natural rubber were blocked. They planted "victory gardens" to provide fruits and vegetables for personal use. "Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without" became the slogan of the day.

Songs conveyed America's sense of optimism. "Goodbye, Momma, I'm off to Yokohama" was one example; "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" was another. Americans seeking a song like "Over There," which had summed up their confidence in World War I, never found one. Instead, the popular music industry ground out a series of trite but colorful titles including: "You're a Sap, Mister Jap," "Let's take a Rap at the Jap," "The Japs Don't Have a Chinaman's Chance," and "We're Gonna Find a Feller Who Is Yeller and Beat Him Red, White, and Blue."

The war caused disruptions at home. Americans faced shortages that required them to deal with the hassle of rationing. They had to provide the necessary coupons-issued by the Office of Price Administration-to be able to purchase items in short supply like sugar, or meat, or gasoline. Housing shortages plagued people moving to war-production centers. Even so, midway through the conflict, seven out of ten Americans said they had not had to make any "real sacrifices" as a result of the war.

For groups discriminated against in the past, the war was a vehicle for lasting social and economic gains. For women and blacks in particular, the war was a stimulus-and a model-for future change.

The war brought enormous changes in American women's lives. Women were, without question, second-class citizens at the start of the struggle. Facing discrimination in the job market, they found many positions simply closed to them. In jobs they could find, they usually earned less than men. But then the huge productive effort that began in 1940 gave women the chance to do industrial work. As millions of men entered the military services, both government and industry waged a concerted campaign, with posters of "Rosie the Riveter," to get women to work in the factories, and they did-in huge numbers. The number of working women rose from 14,600,000 in 1941 to 19,370,000 in 1944. In the latter year, 37 percent of all adult women were in the labor force. At the peak of the industrial effort, women constituted 36 percent of the civilian work force. At the same time, the demographic composition of the female labor pool shifted. Traditionally, working women had been single and young. Between 1940 and 1944, married women made up over 72 percent of the total number of female employees. By the end of the war, half of all female workers were over thirty-five.

Women loved the work. Many agreed with a Baltimore advertisement that told them that working in a war plant was "a lot more exciting than polishing the family furniture." They remained frustrated at unfair pay differentials, but wanted to continue working after the war. Some recognized, as one woman in Tacoma noted, "My husband wants a wife, not a career woman," and complied with the propaganda campaign as the war drew to an end to get them out of the factories so that returning servicemen could take back their jobs. Some were able to continue working, but most left their positions. Still, their experience helped lay the groundwork for a women's movement in later years and the war was an important step on the road to equal rights.

African Americans likewise benefited from the demands of war. At the start of the struggle, their unemployment rate was twice that of whites, and many of the jobs they held were unskilled. They could not join the Air Corps or the Marine Corps. In the Navy, they could enlist only in the all-black messmen's branch. In the Army they were segregated from whites, and they were bothered by constant slights. One black American soldier recalled being turned away from a lunchroom in Salina, Kansas, only to see German prisoners of war being served at the same counter. "This was really happening," he said sadly. "It was no jive talk. The people of Salina would serve these enemy soldiers and turn away black American GIs."

Blacks became increasingly assertive. The Pittsburgh Courier, a widely circulated black newspaper, proclaimed a "Double V" campaign-V for victory in the struggle against the dictators abroad and V for victory in the campaign for equality at home. Even before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the war, A. Philip Randolph, head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, proposed a massive March on Washington under the slogan "WE LOYAL NEGRO AMERICAN CITIZENS DEMAND THE RIGHT TO WORK AND FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY." He agreed to call off the march only when FDR signed an executive order creating a Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to investigate complaints about discrimination and take appropriate action. While the FEPC was never wholly effective, it enjoyed a few notable successes when the pressure of war production made employers willing to hire African American workers. Meanwhile, black students at Howard University in Washington, DC, picketed segregated restaurants. Some black airmen finally had the chance to fly, and black soldiers served with distinction in increasing numbers. These efforts foreshadowed the protest campaigns of the subsequent Civil Rights Movement.

Not all groups of outsiders fared well. Japanese Americans were the worst civilian casualties of the war. Though but a tiny minority on the West Coast, they were visible and vulnerable, particularly after Pearl Harbor. Rumors spread about possible sabotage. Time and Life magazines told readers how to tell friendly Chinese from enemy Japanese: "The Chinese expression is likely to be more placid, kindly, open; the Japanese more positive, dogmatic, arrogant." Government officials added their own observations. "A Jap's a Jap," said General John DeWitt, head of the Western Defense Command. Faced with mounting pressure, the Army cited military necessity as the reason to evacuate Japanese Americans, whether or not they were citizens, from the West Coast. When it became clear that other parts of the country did not want the evacuees, a new War Relocation Authority ignored constitutional qualms and forcibly moved Japanese Americans to ten detention camps in seven western states. Harsh conditions undermined a sense of social cohesion. Eventually, some Japanese Americans accepted the chance to fight in the war. Others, who refused, faced further internment, sometimes in even harsher conditions.

For the most part, Americans looked back fondly on World War II. They had fought against totalitarian dictatorships for democratic ideals and they had won. The world was a better place for the sacrifices they had made, and veterans and others took pride in a job well done. For many Americans, this was, in the phrase journalist Studs Terkel helped popularize in 1984 in the title of his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "the Good War." Yet more recently some observers have pointed out that in the pursuit of victory, the United States on occasion failed to live up to its own democratic principles.

They have debated, too, the degree to which World War II was a watershed that changed the nation's course. The war clearly brought a return of prosperity after the dismal depression of the 1930s. It promoted the growth of big business and solidified military industrial links. It brought about permanent demographic change. For groups discriminated against in the past, the war was a vehicle for lasting social and economic gains. The war changed configurations of political power. Americans now looked to the federal government to deal with problems handled privately, or at a state or local level, before. Meanwhile, the presidency grew more powerful than it had ever been before.

And yet, continuity with the past was also important, and basic American values endured. As Americans looked ahead, they did so through the lens of the past. They remained attached to the status quo as they sought to create a more attractive, stable, and secure future based on the model that still influenced their lives. They hungered for the prosperity they recalled from the 1920s, so elusive in the 1930s, now once again possible thanks to the spending for war. Their vision of the future included no brave and bold new world, but a revived and refurbished version of the world they had known before. The war restored the self-confidence they had felt prior to the depression and convinced them that what they wanted was within their grasp. The American dream, its contours the same, remained alive and well.

Despite such continuities, the changes that occurred between 1940 and 1945 stand out vividly. Even when seen against a broader perspective, the transformation the United States experienced was profound. In responding to extraordinary challenges, the United States was undeniably different at the end of the war than it had been at the start.

War, by its very nature, has always been a catalyst for change, and World War II followed that pattern. In the United States, World War II made Americans more willing to involve themselves-politically and diplomatically-with the outside world. It also expanded their hopes and expectations and forever altered the patterns of their lives at home.

Allan M. Winkler is Distinguished Professor of History at Miami University of Ohio and author of Home Front, USA: America during World War II (1986) andFranklin D. Roosevelt and the Making of Modern America (2005).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Allan M. Winkler World War II had a profound impact on the United States. Although no battles occurred on the American mainland, the war affected all phases of American life. It required unprecedented efforts to coordinate strategy and tactics with other members of the Grand Alliance and then to plunge into battle against the Axis powers-Germany, Italy, and Japan.

# data[].attributes.body
"Total US debt, including private and business debt, is $67 trillion, or just under 400% of GDP. We have 95 million people not in the labor force. 15 million of them are not employed. That’s twice the number officially unemployed." (Forbes, December 1, 2016)

This connects to the Great Depression slide because if we can't get the current American debt and losses under control, we may be looking at another depression in the near future. During the Great depression 15 million people were unemployed, comparable to todays numbers. So in order to avoid another depression Trump needs to keep his promise of creating jobs in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No matter who won the presidency, the economic way forward was not going to be easy. The Republican team understands they must "stand and deliver." But as we will see, that is not going to be easy.

I'm going to depart from the normal format, where I talk about the economic realities we face and how we should invest, and instead offer my view of what I think the Trump administration and the GOP-led Congress should do.

But first, let's look briefly at where we are now-at the constraining facts that any economic proposal must take into consideration.
The US' debt spree
Total US debt, including private and business debt, is $67 trillion, or just under 400% of GDP. We have 95 million people not in the labor force. 15 million of them are not employed. That's twice the number officially unemployed.

We have almost 2 million prison inmates, 43 million living in poverty, 43 million receiving food stamps, 57 million Medicare enrollees, and 73 million Medicaid recipients- and 31 million still remain without health insurance..

The US federal government debt will be slightly north of $20 trillion before Obama leaves office in January. Local and state debt is another $3 trillion. That is a total of more than $23 trillion of government debt. The US economy will be a few hundred billion dollars under $19 trillion at the end of this year. That is a debt-to-GDP ratio of somewhat over 121%.

That debt has risen roughly $10 trillion under Obama, in just eight years. Last year, the debt rose $1.4 trillion, even though we were told that the budget deficit was less than $600 billion.

This US debt total does not even take into account the over $100 trilliion of unfunded liabilities at local, state, and federal levels. These are going to have to be paid for at some point.
A drag on our growth
I bring up the size of the debt because unproductive debt is a limiting factor on growth. 10 years ago, it wasn't that big of a deal. Today, it is. The more we increase our debt, the more difficult it is going to be to grow our way out of our problem with the debt.

That's just an empirical fact.

Both Europe and Japan have much larger debt ratios than we do, and both have much slower growth rates. Note also that the velocity of money in both those regions is much lower than ours, and the velocity of money in every developing portion of the world continues to drop. (More about that below.)

Something like $5.5 trillion is "intergovernmental debt." The theoretical Social Security trust fund is an example. We "owe it to ourselves," and so many economists simply deduct that money when they talk about the size of the total debt. And technically, it is true that we pay interest on that debt, which comes back to the government. But that doesn't mean those debts aren't going have to be paid.

For economists to talk about this portion of the debt as irrelevant is economic malpractice. It is smoke and mirrors economics of the worst kind. But even if we did dismiss $5.5 trillion dollars of internal debt, the government's debt-to-GDP ratio would still be almost 100% when you include state and local debt.

And that is definitely in the range where all the data and economic analysis suggests that debt is a detriment and a drag on growth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If Trump Doesn't Do This, We Will Have The Great Depression 2.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US President-elect Donald Trump meets John Kelly at the clubhouse of Trump National Golf Club on November 20, 2016 in Bedminster, New Jersey. / AFP / DON EMMERT (Photo credit should read DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images) No matter who won the presidency, the economic way forward was not going to be easy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Augmented Reality -American Progressivism & The Gilded Age 

# data[].attributes.subject
Augmented Reality -American Progressivism & The Gilded Age 

# data[].attributes.body
By: Claudia Marmelo

"Augmented reality is changing the way we view the world -- or at least the way its users see the world" (Kevin Bonsor).

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/augmented-reality.htm

When looking back at the American economic timeline, there are many themes that prevail to today's society. From 1877 to 1917 America experienced huge industrialization improvement and advancement, this age would be known as American Progressivism and The Gilded Age. In 1908 Henry Ford created an assembly line that revolutionized productivity in the American industry specifically one huge change in the manufacturing of automobiles. A car that once took 12 hours to manufacture drastically changed to 2.5.

So how does this time period connect to anything today?

Well just like with the invention of the assembly line, augmented reality is said to change our futures in a similar way to the assembly line and the car.

Glasses that once took time to open up your schedule to go to the store, time to try them all on only to realize you have to shop online for the pair that are out of stock. Scientists predict that this new innovation of augmented reality will completely change the way we are used to operating in society. With augmented reality glasses can be virtually tried on and quickly selected without even having to leave the house.

“On the spectrum between virtual reality, which creates immersive, computer-generated environments, and the real world, augmented reality is closer to the real world. Augmented reality adds graphics, sounds, haptic feedback and smell to the natural world as it exists” (Kevin Bonsor).

Just like the assembly line and advancements in technology back then got people excited about cars and being able to select them, augmented reality is a new innovation that is getting everyone excited especially because of the chance to online shop like never before and perhaps find the “dream dress” for a formal event in just minutes.

So you see how progressivism back then is also happening in today’s society with augmented reality, but how does this all connect to The Gilded Age?

Well, in order to answer this we must go back to the definition of “Gilded”. Gilded means covered thinly with gold paint. The way I like to think about it is something that appears to be amazing but has its challenges under that “thin paint layer”.

Augmented reality while it is the next step from the technology we now have (just like the assembly line was the “next step”) and seems like it will make everything function smoothly, what are the downsides?

Kevin continues, “This new technology, called augmented reality, blurs the line between what's real and what's computer-generated by enhancing what we see, hear, feel and smell.” I don’t know about you, but this gave me chills to read. Although technology has it’s benefits, how much is too much innovation? Ford’s assembly line also had its negatives hidden under the major industrialization that was rapidly consuming the country. Wages were very competitive in the assembly lines and the authentic craftsmanship of individual manufacturing was lost with the innovation of the line. Both of these things are gilded. Although they seem to be sparkling with gold because they are new inventions, the layer of “paint” is still so thin.

As technology is increasing rapidly today, we are reminded of the Progressivism and Gilded Age in the United States where things are rapidly being produced and innovated but we then should ask ourselves how beneficial they are.

# data[].attributes.headline
"By early 1939, more than 300,000 names were on the waiting list for a US visa, according to Professor Beitman’s research.In response to this, the US tightened its immigration protocol and stopped granting visas unless transportation to the country had already been booked." - Rachel Roberts, (The Independent, January 28, 2017)

# data[].attributes.subject
"By early 1939, more than 300,000 names were on the waiting list for a US visa, according to Professor Beitman’s research.In response to this, the US tightened its immigration protocol and stopped granting visas unless transportation to the country had already been booked." - Rachel Roberts, (The Independent, January 28, 2017)

# data[].attributes.body
This article relates President Trump's immigration ban to the similar immigration strictness that had occurred during World War II. Many Jewish people during the start of World War II were trying to get the United States, but the U.S. did not want this, so they had made the immigration progress harder for people from other countries to get in at the time. Trump's immigration ban is similar to this time, because there is a war going on in Syria and many Syrian refugees are attempting to go to the United States during Barack Obama's presidency, however; President Trump had completely banned all Syrian refugees from entering the country. Though Trump's intent on banning these immigrants is not meant to be harmful, it seems as though his ban is an attack against a specific group of people who need help, as many Jewish people of the time had to go through similar events.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the world reacts to President Trump's decision to restrict access to America for some Muslims including Syrian refugees, commentators are drawing parallels with the plight of Jews fleeing persecution by the Nazis on the eve of World War II.

While many are familiar with the plight of young diarist Anne Frank and her family, who hid in an Amsterdam attic for three years before they were sent to the gas chambers, fewer people are aware of their desperate, doomed attempt to enter the US in 1941.

Anne father, Otto Frank tried in vain to obtain visas to the US, a convoluted and protracted process revealed in nearly 80 pages of documents unearthed by the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in 2007.

Although the Franks had high-level connections in American business and political circles, this was not enough to secure safe passage for the family.

"Otto Frank's efforts to get his family to the United States ran foul of restrictive American immigration policies designed to protect national security and guard against an influx of foreigners during time of war", wrote American University history professor Richard Breitman.

The Frank family included father Otto, mother Edith and sisters Margot and Anne, who would be 87 if she was alive today.

Instead, she was killed by the Nazis at the age of 15 at the Bergeb-Belsen concentration camp.

By 1941, the Frank family had been forced to flee Germany for the Netherlands, from where Mr Frank made the fruitless visa applications for the US.

"I am forced to look out for emigration and as far as I can see USA is the only country we could go to," Mr Frank wrote in a letter to a friend on April 30, 1941.

"Perhaps you remember that we have two girls. It is for the sake of the children mainly that we have to care for. Our own fate is of less importance."

By early 1939, more than 300,000 names were on the waiting list for a US visa, according to Professor Beitman's research.

In response to this, the US tightened its immigration protocol and stopped granting visas unless transportation to the country had already been booked.

Tough new rules meant the Franks could not get visas if they had any remaining close relatives in Germany because of fears refugees might act as spies if their relatives were pressured by the Nazis.

American Ambassador to Cuba, George Messersmith wrote in May 1940: "Among the so-called refugees in our country is a fair number who can be depended upon to act as agents of their government and who will violate in any way the hospitality which they are enjoying among us."

Such restrictions would have meant the entire Frank family would have had to get US visas, or none would qualify.

Paperwork reveals a series of hold-ups with the family's visa applications - which were eventually destroyed.

The Washington Post has carried recent editorials claiming the comparison between Jewish and Syrian refugees is valid.

A series of polls conducted in the US in the build-up to Word War II showed the American public was broadly against the arrival of refugees from Europe, the majority of whom were Jews.

The Washington Post said in its 2015 editorial: "Jews were viewed as harbingers of dangerous ideologies, particularly communism and anarchism.

"There were pronounced fears that fifth columnists and spies would infiltrate the country through the tide of refugees fleeing fascist Europe."

Mr Trump has suspended refugee admissions to the US for 120 days as part of measures he claimed would "keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the US".

He issued an executive order which banned Syrian refugees indefinitely until "significant changes" are made, and halved the annual cap on refugees to 50,000.

The order will affect people from "countries of particular concern", which is expected to include Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump's refugee policy is being compared to the Nazi persecution of Anne Frank

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world reacts to President Trump's decision to restrict access to America for some Muslims including Syrian refugees, commentators are drawing parallels with the plight of Jews fleeing persecution by the Nazis on the eve of World War II.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump Turns to Manufacturing Executives to Help Develop Jobs Plans (Ellie Arrow)

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump Turns to Manufacturing Executives to Help Develop Jobs Plans (Ellie Arrow)

# data[].attributes.body
“My administration’s policies and regulatory reform, tax reform, trade policies will return significant manufacturing jobs to our country,” Mr. Trump said at the White House, sitting around a large table with members of his cabinet and two dozen manufacturing executives. “Everything’s going to be based on bringing our jobs back — the good jobs, the real jobs. They’ve left and they’re coming back. They have to come back.”
- Julie Hirschfeld Davis, February 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/politics/trump-manufacturing.html

This relates to the New Deal during 1933 to 1938. Many Americans were unemployed in 1933 because of the Great Depression, and it was one of FDR's priorities to create jobs for Americans to boost the economy. Today, one of Trump's main priorities as well is to create jobs for Americans. Trump believes that too much manufacturing of American goods is happening overseas, and therefore, not giving Americans the jobs they deserve. He wants to bring the manufacturing back to the US, and he believes he can create 25 million jobs.

# data[].attributes.headline
President Trump's Immigration Ban - American Progressivism         (David Adipietro)

# data[].attributes.subject
President Trump's Immigration Ban - American Progressivism         (David Adipietro)

# data[].attributes.body
"President Donald Trump's seismic move to ban more than 218 million people from the United States and to deny entry to all refugees reverberated worldwide Saturday, as chaos and confusion rippled through US airports, American law enforcement agencies, and foreign countries trying to grasp Washington's new policy. Trump's executive order bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for the next 90 days and suspends the admission of all refugees for 120 days" -- Washington (CNN). (CNN Politics, 2017)

This article and specifically this quote, states President Trump's Immigration ban and the overall gist of the problem itself. President Trump has done this to effectively make sure that no terrorists and bad people to come into the US and steal American jobs; However, something else has been affected, the American Economy. This has caused large corporations to loose money with ties overseas, the value of the dollar has declined relative to other countries, and financial markets in general are reacting negatively.
This immigration ban, banning 218 million people from the U.S., relates to American Progressivism in 1877-1917 slide (#8). But basically what Trump is doing is the complete opposite of what happened in this age of Progressivism. Many people from many ethnicities were brought into the country to expand the cultural diversity, and In current day Trump is undoing that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
international relations and national security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump's immigration ban sends shockwaves | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump's seismic move to ban more than 218 million people from the United States and to deny entry to all refugees reverberated worldwide Saturday, as chaos and confusion rippled through US airports, American law enforcement agencies and foreign countries trying to grasp Washington's new policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dylan Middlebrook - Are we headed for another great Depression? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Dylan Middlebrook - Are we headed for another great Depression? 

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. economy had been living on borrowed money for a long time. The financial crisis scared businesses and families. That's why growth in this recovery is slower than in prior ones. You are witnessing a gradual deleveraging. It will continue for some time. In the United States, Europe, and Japan, it's aggravated by demographics. These countries have aging populations. Seniors don't need to spend as much on housing, cars, and furniture as young people starting a family. But this deleveraging is unlikely to be enough to cause a worldwide depression. That's thanks to growth in China, India, and other emerging-market countries that have excess cash reserves and younger populations.

What's good for the economy may not necessarily be good for you -- and vice-versa. When the economy is uncertain, it's time to get defensive. The only way to do that is to increase your income and reduce your spending. That way, you'll have money to reduce your debt. After that, make sure you have a cushion, and then build up your savings. The best investment is still a diversified portfolio.

If possible, make sure you have a college degree. Education is the great divide in this society -- the unemployment rate for college grads is half the average. Although housing is historically cheap, as are interest rates, only buy a house you can easily afford. The smaller the house, the less furniture you'll have to buy to fill it. The economy will probably avoid another Great Depression, but either way, you'll be in a better position to weather it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump’s Muse on U.S. Trade with China - Emma Buchanan

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump’s Muse on U.S. Trade with China - Emma Buchanan

# data[].attributes.body
"Foreign governments, companies, and citizens spend much of their savings on U.S. government bonds and the stock of American companies. While this investment has not always led to benign outcomes (the financial crisis of the previous decade was, in part, caused by all that cash from all over the world seeking returns in the U.S.), shutting down global trade would, necessarily, also shut down this investment. Interest rates would skyrocket, and the U.S. would enter a painful recession, possibly a depression." - Adam Davidson (The New Yorker, 2016)

This article details Trump and Navarro's views on U.S. trade with China, which are very negative. Both the president and the veteran on Trump's economic team believe that China and its negative practices is the central problem for the world, something so radical that only a few, if any, economists would agree with.
"The financial crisis of the previous decade" in this article refers to the Great Recession. This article is proposing that if global trade falls, investments from foreign countries in U.S. stocks would no longer happen, causing an extreme loss of money for the U.S. This would cause another financial crisis like the Great Recession (which was also caused in part to issues with investments in U.S. stocks).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Economics has been a crutch for some Republicans who want to convince themselves that, of two hated candidates, Donald Trump is the one who shares most of their values. He doesn't like taxes-boy, does he not like taxes-and he doesn't like regulation, so we'll let his hatred of trade slide. But his hatred of trade, unlike his more perfunctory economic pronouncements, is enthusiastic. At the Presidential debate on Sunday night, when asked a vague question about caring for all Americans, he went straight to his comfortable place: "When I look at . . . the potential that our country has, we have such tremendous potential." What is preventing that potential from being realized? "Trade, where we're doing so badly. . . . It's hard to believe. Inconceivable."

Trade has played a central role in Trump's campaign. It is his most consistently expressed explanation for America's failings, and reducing imports and increasing exports is one of his primary policy solutions to Make America Great Again. While most Americans, and nearly all economists, believe that trade has, on balance, been good for America (if not for all Americans), Trump has found deep support from people who are feeling economic pain.

Trump's views on trade are crude: there are winners (them) and losers (us), and there is one simple solution that will fix everything (threat of a trade war). How Trump came to these views is not totally clear, but his thinking, especially on trade and China, has certainly been influenced by Peter Navarro, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of California, Irvine. Being the only economist-and one with a Harvard Ph.D. at that-on Donald Trump's economic team, Navarro provides a patina of legitimacy. (The others on Trump's economic team are businesspeople who donated to the campaign and several people from the far right of Republican economic thought.) Navarro's views on trade and China are so radical, however, that, even with his assistance, I was unable to find another economist who fully agrees with them. Should Donald Trump overcome the odds against him now and be elected President, Navarro would likely become the single most powerful economic adviser in the United States.

Navarro, a sixty-seven-year-old who has the silver hair and resonant voice of a veteran senator, was hired at the University of California, Irvine's Paul Merage School of Business in 1989 largely because of research he had done on public utilities. Soon after moving to California, he began a decade-long pursuit of elected office. He ran as a Democrat in a number of races, including for mayor of San Diego and for Congress, which he didn't win.

In the next phase of his life, Navarro sought to enter the public conversation in another way, as the author of popular economics books. In 2001, he published "If It's Raining in Brazil, Buy Starbucks: The Investor's Guide to Profiting from News and Other Market-Moving Events," the first of a series of get-rich investing books. Then, in 2006, Navarro's work dramatically shifted. He published the first of three books for general audiences and policymakers that take a hard-line, antagonistic view of China. He wrote "The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought, How They Can Be Won," a short, zippy attack on China for pretty much everything-intellectual-property theft, pollution, prison labor. His follow-up books, "Death by China: Confronting the Dragon-A Global Call to Action" and "Crouching Tiger: What China's Militarism Means for the World," were accompanied by films directed by Navarro. "Death by China" did show in theatres and received dismissive reviews, including one that called it "the documentary equivalent of a raving street-corner derelict." One viewer, though, loved it. The film's marketing materials include a blurb by Donald Trump: " 'Death by China' is right on. This important documentary depicts our problem with China with facts, figures and insight. I urge you to see it."

Navarro first came into contact with Trump in 2011, after reading that Trump told the official Chinese government news agency, Xinhua, that Navarro's first book on China was one of his favorites. The two men communicated occasionally after that, but only met in person during the Presidential campaign. Navarro told me he has spent much more time with the candidate lately, sometimes joining the small circle of advisers invited on his plane.

Navarro's view on China-a view he shares with Trump-is not simply that China engages in unfair trade practices. That is common knowledge. China does manipulate its currency. China also does ignore intellectual-property laws, has a poor record of worker-safety standards and environmental protection, and, in many other ways, has improved its ability to compete in the global economy at the expense of other nations. But Navarro takes these commonly held views into radical terrain. He argues that China and its bad practices are the world's central problem. "Until the trade issue is fixed, there can be no prosperity in the global economy," he wrote me in an e-mail. In another, he criticized other economists, saying that they "assume countries don't cheat and exchange rates float. That's even stupider [in] a real world which proves just the opposite. Once cheating occurs and/or there is currency manipulation, trade becomes a zero sum game with winners like China and Mexico and losers like the US."

The phrase "zero-sum game" is a powerful one in economics; it refers to a situation in which one party to a transaction can only gain if the other party loses. This is in contrast to most other market transactions, in which both parties can be made better off by exchanging with each other. For Navarro, the U.S. is a loser-a passive victim, whose prosperity is in the hands of the leadership of China and Mexico. His solution, much like Trump's, is for the U.S. to threaten to impose a massive tariff on all Chinese imports. Navarro calculated a tariff of forty-three per cent; Trump has suggested forty-five per cent. (Navarro told me he isn't sure if Trump took the number from him or if they came to their figures independently.) Navarro argues that the mere threat of this tariff will so terrify China that the country will change its policies and will export far less to the United States. " American multinationals will onshore their new factories," he wrote, moving them from China, Vietnam, and Mexico "to cities like Charleston, Detroit, Houston, Oklahoma City, Savannah, Youngstown and Toledo."

This is an appealing fantasy for some. But Navarro's view is not just simplistic, it is wrong and dangerous. There's no reason to think China would acquiesce to Trump's threats; doing so would all but guarantee that China would face an unending series of similar threats from America and others. Instead, it would most likely respond with tariffs of its own, shutting down American imports. China already trades more with the European Union than it does with the U.S., and would shift its trading strategy even more decisively away from us. It is hard to find a major American exporter who doesn't see China as its most promising area of growth. A trade war would shatter General Motors, all of Hollywood, the music industry, Boeing, and the entire state of Washington, which exports more goods to China than any other.

Navarro and Trump also assume a manufacturing universe that no longer exists. American manufacturers have shifted away from making lower-cost commodity goods and focus, instead, on more expensive, complex products, like medical devices, automobiles, and airplanes. All of those goods require a steady input of smaller, commodity components like screws and circuit boards that are made in China and other countries. Some companies might react by beginning to manufacture those lower-cost commodity products domestically, but it seems unlikely that many manufacturers would do so. A huge tariff on China wouldn't suddenly force Vietnam or Mexico or, for that matter, Germany or Japan to reduce their global competitiveness. Indeed, they would see it as an opportunity. Multinational corporations considering leaving China would face an easy choice: they could reinvest in the U.S., in the midst of a unilaterally created trade war, or they could invest in any other country on earth and have access to the U.S. and global markets.

These are just the easily predicted first-order effects of a massive tariff increase on all Chinese imports. There are many terrifying second-order impacts. Trump and Navarro focus on America's manufacturing-trade deficit. But the global economy has also brought the U.S. a tremendous investment surplus. Foreign governments, companies, and citizens spend much of their savings on U.S. government bonds and the stock of American companies. While this investment has not always led to benign outcomes (the financial crisis of the previous decade was, in part, caused by all that cash from all over the world seeking returns in the U.S.), shutting down global trade would, necessarily, also shut down this investment. Interest rates would skyrocket, and the U.S. would enter a painful recession, possibly a depression.

It has been an awful few decades for manufacturing workers and for many others, especially those with less education. While a good chunk of the blame should fall on our dramatic increase in trade with China, other onslaughts have contributed greatly. Workers have been displaced by technology and discouraged from getting more education because of the rising cost of public universities. Democratically aligned economists point to weaker unions, a low minimum wage, a lack of infrastructure spending, and a series of congressional and Supreme Court actions that shift bargaining power away from workers and toward corporations. Many traditional Republicans believe that regulations and taxes prevent investment that could lead to more jobs. There is enormous disagreement about the proper response to global trade. However, pretty much every economics scholar would observe that the United States is hardly powerless against China and that the fundamental solutions to adjusting to a global economy are domestic ones. We have, within the United States, all the power we need to improve our education system, to help workers transfer to more promising industries, to invest in infrastructure, and to improve worker bargaining power.

The first hint of how Navarro's ideas might play out in a Trump Administration came in the most comprehensive economic document so far released by the campaign. Navarro, along with the Trump supporter and private-equity investor Wilbur Ross, wrote " Scoring the Trump Economic Plan: Trade, Regulatory, & Energy Policy Impacts." The core purpose of the document was to counter the nonpartisan Tax Foundation's grim assessment of Trump's tax-cut policies. The Tax Foundation, like many other independent observers, believes that Trump's financial plans would add trillions of dollars to the federal debt. Navarro and Ross counter that if the U.S. were to eliminate the trade deficit there would be so many new jobs, with so many of those new workers paying taxes, that Trump's tax cuts would be nearly revenue-neutral.

The document, which has been mocked on the left and the right, presents no concrete prescription to correct the trade imbalance it abhors. One key sentence: "Trump proposes eliminating America's $500 billion trade deficit through a combination of increased exports and reduced imports." This is a tautology, equivalent to saying one plans to weigh less in the future through a combination of losing weight and not gaining weight. The paper does list a familiar series of problems with U.S.-China trade, such as currency manipulation and bad trade deals, and asserts that Trump will correct these without any clarification as to how he will do it. Greg Mankiw, an economist at Harvard who was an adviser to President George W. Bush and to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, called the analysis "truly disappointing" and wrote on his blog that it missed things that "even a freshman at the end of ec 10 knows."

Navarro's responses to critiques tend to be blistering and Trumpian. In an e-mail describing economists who disagree with him about trade, he used the words "stupid" and "stupider" to characterize their views. The next morning, when I asked for clarification, he wrote, "This is why I don't trust you or want to discuss anything on the phone with you. Where did you come up with the 'stupid' thing? Were you recording me on our phone call without my permission?" (In the interest of full disclosure, Navarro did take me to task in The National Interest for not being objective on Trump in an earlier story. Also, I didn't record him.)

Nearly all economists would agree that trade with China has caused pain for many American workers and needs attention. Some left-leaning economists, like Dean Baker, are especially frustrated with U.S. trade policy that has, they argue, favored the interests of large corporations over working people. But I have never heard any public-policy expert make claims like Navarro's: that trade is the central problem in the world, that trade brings mostly pain to America, and that dramatically lessening trade will bring a renaissance to our economy. I asked Navarro to refer me to economists who agree with him on trade issues. He told me to talk with Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, and Alan Tonelson, a blogger who writes frequently against trade. "Tonelson is a fine economist," Navarro wrote. That e-mail was quickly followed by one from Tonelson himself, acknowledging "that I do not hold an economics degree." I then spoke at length with Morici, who said that he agrees with Navarro that there are deep problems with our trade relationship with China, but that Navarro "has a rather severe position. That zero-sum statement, I have a problem with that. Where's his proof?"

Donald Trump's other leading economic adviser, the libertarian activist Stephen Moore, told me that he does not completely agree with Navarro or Trump on trade issues. "I told him that in my first meeting: 'Donald, I'm a free-trade guy.' He said, 'O.K., help me with other things.' "

Navarro is the only Ph.D. economist I was able to find who enthusiastically supports Trump. I can't say there aren't any others, but, in weeks of reporting, I have not been able to find any. As a likely place to start, I used a letter that three hundred and five economists wrote expressing their concerns about Hillary Clinton's economic policies. The letter was, pointedly, not an endorsement of Donald Trump, though Moore did tell me he helped craft it. I reached out to dozens of the economists who signed the letter. Most had responses like Lloyd Cohen, of George Mason University: "These are two of the most unattractive human beings one could possibly imagine running for President." Howard Baetjer, Jr., of Towson University, wrote, "No! I don't endorse Trump! That's dreadful to contemplate. No, I especially deplore his ignorant, inhumane, and economically damaging immigration and trade policies." A handful said they might vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. To be fair, I did not reach every letter signer, nor did I contact every economist in the United States. However, even in this select group of anti-Clinton economist partisans, the percentage who express enthusiastic support for Trump is shockingly small. The number may turn out to be no more than one: Peter Navarro.

Adam Davidson is a staff writer at The New Yorker.
Read more "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Economics has been a crutch for some Republicans who want to convince themselves that, of two hated candidates, Donald Trump is the one who shares most of their values. He doesn't like taxes-boy, does he not like taxes-and he doesn't like regulation, so we'll let his hatred of trade slide.

# data[].attributes.headline
"It is often said that the market dislikes uncertainty, and the market has had to deal with a lot of uncertainty so far in 2016. It began with the Deutsche Bank turmoil that led to a decline into the February 11 low and then the Brexit event that shocked the markets and led to a brief two day decline. The market has been very resilient and quickly recovered from both of those events. The other cloud hanging over the market has been the Presidential Election." -Sean Clark (Fox Business, 2016)

# data[].attributes.subject
"It is often said that the market dislikes uncertainty, and the market has had to deal with a lot of uncertainty so far in 2016. It began with the Deutsche Bank turmoil that led to a decline into the February 11 low and then the Brexit event that shocked the markets and led to a brief two day decline. The market has been very resilient and quickly recovered from both of those events. The other cloud hanging over the market has been the Presidential Election." -Sean Clark (Fox Business, 2016)

# data[].attributes.body
While on a smaller scale, some events that occurred in 2016 were comparable to the events that spurred past economic downfalls like the Great Depression and the Great Recession. One of the causes of the Great Depression was the stock market crash of 1929 which dropped the Dow Jones industrial average by 25%. In 2016, the United Kingdom left the European Union, which dropped the Dow Jones industrial average by a not as substantial number, but a still significant 4%. When the U.S. housing market crash occurred that spurred the Great Recession, Americans lost confidence in the market (similar to the Great Depression) which could be seen by a decrease in consumer spending. While on a smaller scale, during the recent presidential election, Americans were similarly cautious of their investments during uncertain times. (Alex Sprouls)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Sean Clark, Clark Capital Chief Investment Officer

It is often said that the market dislikes uncertainty, and the market has had to deal with a lot of uncertainty so far in 2016. It began with the Deutsche Bank turmoil that led to a decline into the February 11 low and then the Brexit event that shocked the markets and led to a brief two day decline. The market has been very resilient and quickly recovered from both of those events. The other cloud hanging over the market has been the Presidential Election. As students of market history, we think it is important to have an appreciation for historical precedent.

This chart of the four-year Presidential Cycle had suggested a trading range for the market from mid-2015 into mid-2016, which is similar to the environment we went through from the May 2015 highs until that trading range was broken to the upside this past July. In addition, it shows that the market has historically been positive in the election year, with most of the election year strength occurring in the second half of the year. Often the timing of an election year rally depends on when the winner of the presidency is well known, or discounted, regardless of party.

From an historical perspective, there have been 17 post WWII elections and the median gain for the S&P 500 in an election year is 10.4%; the average gain is 6.6%. However, the market has fared better in the election years when there was a Democrat in office. There have been eight such cases, and the S&P 500 has gained 11.7% in those election years. Breaking it down even further, it didn't seem to matter much if the Democratic incumbent won or lost. In the years in which he won, the market gained 11.5% and when he lost it gained 8.8%.

The economy and stock market performance have historically played a role in the eventual outcome of the election. On those two fronts, the current economic health has correlated with the history of the incumbent party retaining office, and the year-to-date market performance is also closely tracking the incumbent party retaining control of the White House.

The strength of the economy has been a big determinant of whether the incumbent party has won or lost, evidenced by the slogan "It's the economy, stupid!" In the 29 Presidential Elections since 1900, the economy has been in a recession five times on Election Day. Four of those times the incumbent party lost. The exception was 1948, when the economy entered a recession during the month of the election following Truman's victory. Conversely, when the economy has not been in a recession, the odds of the incumbent party retaining control of the White House has jumped to 71%. Of the seven cases when the incumbent party has lost when the economy was not in a recession, four saw recessions occur within eight months of Election Day (1912, 1952, 1980, and 2000). We don't see any evidence of a looming recession and, in fact, we expect the economy to pick up momentum. The Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) is currently at a new recovery high and there has not been a single recession in the U.S. over the past 50 years in which the LEI wasn't declining first by an average of 11 months. We are not seeing any weakness currently in the Leading Indicators Index and, if history is any guide, the U.S. economy should continue its expansion well into 2017.

The performance of the markets has been more closely tracking an incumbent party victory instead of an incumbent party loss. According to Ned Davis Research (NDR), during years in which the incumbent party has won, the market has bottomed earlier (on average a low for the year on January 21 and a higher low on May 26) versus when the incumbent has lost (on average a low on October 25). So far this year, the market's low was on February 11 with a higher low on June 27. That would seem to be consistent with an incumbent victory, however there is one caveat that makes this election result more uncertain. Another stock market barometer related to the election is whether the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is higher or lower from the end of the second convention until the day before the election. Since 1900, when the incumbent party has won, the DJIA has rallied a median of 5.7% versus -1.5% when the incumbent party has lost. The Democratic Convention ended on July 28 with the DJIA at 18,456.35. The market performance between now and the election will be very telling and the election could hinge on the Federal Reserve's interest rate decision and how well the candidates do in the debates.

The market has recently become more volatile as the polls have tightened and show Trump in a virtual dead heat with Clinton, once the prohibitive favorite to win in November. The tightening of the polls has injected a layer of uncertainty and skittishness among investors given the unknown effects on the markets and economy of the candidates' policies. Historically, a pickup in volatility is not uncommon as the election draws near. While October has historically been the most volatile month of the year for the S&P 500, that trend has been seen to change in election years where S&P 500 volatility tends to rise and remain somewhat elevated into November.

At the present time, even with the polls tightening, it looks as if Trump has a very narrow path to the White House, with Clinton's path to victory looking much easier. However, a third term by either party is rare. Since 1900, a party has won the Oval Office for at least three consecutive terms seven times, with the feat being accomplished only once since 1948, when President Bush 41 was elected in 1988 following President Reagan's two terms. The last time a two-term Democrat turned the White House over to another Democrat was Andrew Jackson to Martin Van Buren in 1836. We could see a continuation of divided government. Either way, we feel neither the Senate nor the House will enjoy much of a majority. It's likely that Democrats in the Senate will have at best a 52-48 margin, and the Republican majority in the house is likely to shrink from 30 to the mid-teens. So, we may see four more years of gridlock in D.C.
SEE MORE: Emerging Market ETFs Win Clinton, Trump Debate
We believe a Clinton victory would mean more of the same policies and regulations that have existed under President Obama and the market seems comfortable with that. It appears that a Trump victory would raise the odds of a more aggressive fiscal policy, which Trump outlined in a recent speech at the Economic Club of New York. Trump claimed that his program of tax cuts and expanded spending, along with trade and regulatory changes, would generate real annual growth of 3.5% but would be "deficit-neutral" by reducing each dollar of nondefense and non-entitlement federal spending. In our view, the market seems to be a little anxious over Trump's policy initiatives given the recent skittish trading.

In our opinion the big economic issues of this election are the Federal Reserve, trade, tax policy, and regulation.

Under a Clinton presidency there will likely be very little change at the Federal Reserve. The Fed would likely remain more dovish than the alternative, and longtime Clinton friend and ally Lawrence Summers would likely be in the running for the position of Chairman should Yellen decide to retire. Under a Trump administration, we believe the Fed would likely take a more hawkish tone and could be a little destabilizing with the Fed audit crowd gaining support.

Clinton comes off as an internationalist and Trump as a protectionist. However, in reality they are both closer to the middle of the spectrum. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a hot button with Clinton who is now vowing to kill the trade deal she helped push as President Obama's top diplomat. If it passes in a lame-duck session, Clinton would probably not try to block it, contrary to what she said. Trump on the other hand has been in opposition to TPP, but when push comes to shove, we believe he will not want to get into a trade war with China and it is very unlikely that Chinese tariffs would be meaningfully altered.

The tax policies proposed by the two candidates are quite different, but also too lengthy and complicated, as is the current tax code, to get into here. In short, tax policy needs to stimulate growth as growth drives revenues. It is the difference between one candidate promoting lower marginal tax rates to drive revenues through economic growth and the other candidate driving revenues through taxation.

As an example, Trump would use an easier, less punitive tax code to help stimulate economic growth. Trump has proposed fewer tax brackets and lower rates for most individuals, lower capital gains and dividend taxes, and lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Clinton's tax plan is pretty much a continuation of President Obama's plan. She proposes a small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy. She has called for higher capital gains taxes to discourage short-term investing and would install a sliding scale of rates, with shorter-term investments taxed at higher rates than at present and no change to the top rate.
Sean Clark is the Chief Investment Officer at Clark Capital Management, which is a participant in the ETF Strategist Channel
Regulation can have a real impact on economic growth and it can happen much quicker through executive action than going through the normal legislative processes. Trump has called for deregulation to get the Federal government out of the free market and said that government regulations should be pared back to ensure their benefits outweigh their costs and that they don't eliminate U.S. jobs. Trump said he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and called government regulation a "stealth tax." Clinton supports tightening Wall Street regulations and would continue many of President Obama's regulatory policies. In October 2015, Clinton wrote an op-ed1 for Bloomberg detailing her proposals for Wall Street reform. She recommended protecting the Dodd-Frank Act, eliminating the carried interest tax loophole, imposing a "risk fee" on banks with more than $50 billion in assets and enacting a "high-frequency trading" tax.

This article was provided by our partners at ETFTrends.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analyzing the Presidential Election's Impact on Market Uncertainty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Sean Clark, Clark Capital Chief Investment Officer It is often said that the market dislikes uncertainty, and the market has had to deal with a lot of uncertainty so far in 2016.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Trumps Immigration Policies could Effect the Economy - Morgan Leonard

# data[].attributes.subject
How Trumps Immigration Policies could Effect the Economy - Morgan Leonard

# data[].attributes.body
"Some economists argue that undocumented workers are a significant source of economic growth. A recent paper by economists Ryan Edwards and Francesc Ortega estimated that undocumented workers contribute 3 percent of all goods and services produced by the private sector in the US. That amounts to about $5 trillion over 10 years". This connects to the American Progressivism in the 1880s-1900s. In the 1800s's an immense amount of immigrants came into the US from Europe, Ireland, Italy, Poland, and European Jews. After they came in, Central Banking was back in the US. Many jobs and banks opened up as well. The immigrants that came in worked at factories and other jobs. If Trump sends back all of the immigrants, the economy will become worse because of lack of jobs given especially the lower and less paying jobs. The more immigrants in the US, the more jobs getting done and the amount of money the US makes will go up. The article states how "Growth is a good thing for an economy. The more is grows, the more jobs are created and the more workers can demand a decent wage a job security." This was proven in the American Progressivism era.

# data[].attributes.headline
An Impatient and Uninformed Electorate Dooms America To Repeat History

# data[].attributes.subject
An Impatient and Uninformed Electorate Dooms America To Repeat History

# data[].attributes.body
"The real tragedy of this recurring phenomenon is that the groups voting in disastrous, incompetent leaderships time and time again, primarily lower income and less educated, are the ones who pay the heaviest price for the consequences, in resources and often in lives." (Cohen, 2017)
This article is saying that since Trump was elected President, history is bound to repeat itself. Americans have high hopes that Trump sticks to his plans, and our economy builds. As Trump has already taken many actions towards that, some would argue that he's taking care of a mess that former President Obama left for improving. This connects to The Great Depression, because Hoover's term ended shortly after the stock market crashed. This left FDR to revive the deteriorating economy; how Hoover left it in 1933. Although presidents can't be entirely blamed for getting America into serious disasters, when they take office, they're also taking responsibility for their actions to help amend past mistakes made by former presidents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Those who don't learn from history, as the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it. This is not just a cliché, as evidenced by the election of Donald Trump.

It has happened so many times in history: A nation encounters difficulties, economic woes, wars, demographic changes, usually brought about by an incompetent or misguided leadership. The voters subsequently suffer. They elect a more competent leadership that embarks on the long, arduous task of recovery. The people suffer from the hardships and dislocations inherent in any recovery. They are disappointed with the slow pace of progress. The old, incompetent leadership then demagogically promises magic solutions - health, wealth and happiness in no time. They pledge to make the country great again. The voters, particularly those who are lower-middle class and less educated, eat up the slogans, vent their frustration and bring back the incompetent leadership responsible for creating the disaster in the first place.

Germany of the 1920s and 1930s was on the hard route of recovery from the disasters of World War I, which were brought about primarily by the German right militaristic leadership. Recovery was difficult and slow, and most Germans were in dire pain. This was fertile ground for the Nazis, who promised to make Germany great again. The suffering masses succumbed to temptation and voted them into power. Similar stories played out in Japan and Spain.

President Hoover exacerbated the effects of the 1929 crash and brought the United States to the verge of collapse. It took an Franklin Roosevelt, who today would probably have been labeled a socialist, to clean up the mess. But had it not been for World War II, one can assume that the same people who supported Trump in 2016 would have kicked out Roosevelt long before he died.

Israel is another relevant example. The 1973 Yom Kippur war, an attack that caught Israel off guard, left the country bleeding and in shock. The Israeli right, headed by Menachem Begin's Likud party, offered its own magic solutions. Begin was elected and immediately plunged Israel into hyper inflation, which cost Israel an economic decade, a hopeless war in Lebanon, and a wild and disastrous settlement spree in the Occupied Territories. To its credit, this Likud leadership also brought about a peace agreement with Egypt. But Begin, who recognized his failures, soon retired, and Likud replaced him with extreme radicals - Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon.

The real tragedy of this recurring phenomenon is that the groups voting in disastrous, incompetent leaderships time and time again, primarily lower income and less educated, are the ones who pay the heaviest price for the consequences, in resources and often in lives.

George W. Bush, for instance, brought the United States to its knees: He left an economy in shambles and the United States mired in hopeless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama took over a teetering country in a crisis unparalleled since World War II. He led an impressive recovery, taking America out of Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuilding the military, and both stabilizing and reigniting the American economy. But inevitably, the process was slow and challenging, and many Americans still suffer from the difficulties and dislocations of the catastrophic 2008 crisis. So a large part of the electorate, mostly lower income and less educated, once again succumbed to the baseless demagogic sloganeering of an ignorant, totally inexperienced bully who promised quick fixes. Unfortunately, many of the typical Trump voters will pay the price for this repeat tragedy. One can only hope it is not too high.
Shlomo Cohen is the former president of the Israel Bar Association.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Impatient and Uninformed Electorate Dooms America To Repeat History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those who don't learn from history, as the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it. This is not just a cliché, as evidenced by the election of Donald Trump. It has happened so many times in history: A nation encounters difficulties, economic woes, wars, demographic changes, usually brought about by an incompetent or misguided leadership.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.” It’s true, too, that 43 million Americans live in poverty — but that’s down from nearly 49 million people four years ago. That’s a drop from about 15 percent of the population to about 13 percent — about where it was for most of George W. Bush’s presidency.In 2013, there were also about 48 million people on food stamps, which was also a side effect of the end of the recession. That figure has now declined nearly 12 percent — but is still higher than before the economic collapse.”

# data[].attributes.subject
“Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.” It’s true, too, that 43 million Americans live in poverty — but that’s down from nearly 49 million people four years ago. That’s a drop from about 15 percent of the population to about 13 percent — about where it was for most of George W. Bush’s presidency.In 2013, there were also about 48 million people on food stamps, which was also a side effect of the end of the recession. That figure has now declined nearly 12 percent — but is still higher than before the economic collapse.”

# data[].attributes.body
This article, by Philip Bump from the Washington Post, analyzes many statements that Donald Trump has made about "an economically broken America". Many of these statements relate to the slide about the Great Recession because there are currently ninety four million Americans out of the labor force, and over forty three million people who are living in poverty. During the Great Recession, which lasted from 2007 to 2009, there were 8.7 million American jobs lost. Over the last few years, the amount of people living in poverty has certainly improved, but the United States still has a ways to go until they are back to where they were before the Great Recession. (Catherine Sprouls)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit for President Trump's surprise electoral victory in November is often given to his ferocious excoriation of the existing economic order. His speeches regularly focused on bad trade deals, jobs shipped overseas and an economy that was barely off the mat, leaving regular Americans behind. The extent to which those arguments are the cause of Trump's win is debatable - exit polls showed that those worried about the economy broadly preferred Hillary Clinton - but the plight of the white working class became central to Trump's campaign narrative.

A recurring question in the wake of that incessant pessimism has been what would happen once Trump took the reins. After all, the economy of 2016 was far stronger than the economy America saw at the tail-end of the recession, and Trump would be taking office in an environment where unemployment was low and growth was consistent, if modest.

On Tuesday night, Trump offered something of an answer: He'd continue to depict the nation's economy as faltering, cherry-picking data to reinforce his argument that he's walking into the White House with the economy in a near-shambles.

In one stretch, Trump offered a series of data points that demand more context. "Tonight, as I outline the next steps we must take as a country," he said, "we must honestly acknowledge the circumstances we inherited."

"Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force." This is true and was often cited over the past eight years as an example of why the economy was softer than it looked - people who could be working but weren't. The reasons for this, though, are complex, and include the fact that baby boomers have been aging out of the workforce.

As our fact-checkers note, the vast majority of the people who aren't in the labor force aren't in the labor force because they don't want to labor - they're not looking for a job.

Of the 94 million out of the labor force: 44 m retired.15.3 m disabled. 13.3m taking care of a family member. 13.2 mi are in school

- David Freedlander (@freedlander) March 1, 2017

"Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps." It's true, too, that 43 million Americans live in poverty - but that's down from nearly 49 million people four years ago. That's a drop from about 15 percent of the population to about 13 percent - about where it was for most of George W. Bush's presidency.

In 2013, there were also about 48 million people on food stamps, which was also a side effect of the end of the recession. That figure has now declined nearly 12 percent - but is still higher than before the economic collapse.

"More than 1 in 5 people in their prime working years are not working." The labor force participation rate for people ages 25 to 54 years is 81.5 percent, meaning that 18.5 percent are out of the labor force. Another 4.1 percent are in the labor force but unemployed. That means that 78.2 percent of people in that age group are working - and 21.8 percent aren't.

But there are a lot of reasons that people in prime working years may not be working. Most of that 18.5 percent that's out of the workforce - like the overall figure of those out of the labor force - aren't looking for work. Why not? School. Disability. Taking care of a family member. Trump implies that this 21.8 percent who aren't working are all in the boat of that 4.1 percent who are in the labor force and can't find work. They aren't. And that 4.1 percent figure is relatively good by historic standards; it's actually lower than it was for most of the 1980s, for example.

(Worth noting that in a news release sent out by the White House, this was described as "Nearly 1 in 4 Americans in their prime-working years are not working.")

"We have the worst financial recovery in 65 years." True - but we also had the worst economic situation since the Great Depression.

"In the last 8 years, the past administration has put on more new debt than nearly all other presidents combined." Also true - but much of that debt was accrued as the government scrambled to stem the effects of the recession. At the beginning of 2008, the country had $9.4 trillion in publicly held debt. By the first quarter of 2013, it was $16.7 trillion - and by the third quarter of last year had added about $2.8 trillion more.

"We've lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we've lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001." In January 1994, about 16.9 million Americans worked in manufacturing. Now, 12.3 million do. But the drop-off didn't begin until the end of 2000; between January 1994 and January 2001, the number of manufacturing jobs increased by 200,000.

A key factor in the decline of manufacturing jobs is the rise of automation. Robots, if you will. The Brookings Institution calls automation "the primary force behind lost manufacturing jobs."

The figure on factory closures is out of date. In the first quarter of 2002, right after China joined the WTO, there were 388,813 private manufacturing establishments in the United States. By the second quarter of 2016 - the most recent date available - there were 344,580, a decline of about 44,000. But it's not clear how many of those factories were closed thanks to job loss to China as opposed to other factors, including automation.

That it takes so much more work to contextualize Trump's comments about the economy is precisely why Trump offers them. Again, there's no question that there are Americans who are struggling in the current economy, and there's no question that Trump sincerely wants to address those issues. But it's also the case that Trump's modus operandi is to present a worst-case scenario and offer a sweeping better result without necessarily working through the details that flesh out the middle. He does it with crime; he does it with immigration. He did it with the economy.

Notice that Trump doesn't talk about the low unemployment rate or the declines in poverty or that wages are ticking up or that the decline in the size of the labor force has halted. Not the story he wants to tell, any more than he wants to tell the stories of successful immigrants or the long-term downward trend in violent crime.

So if you inherit a moderately good economy but need to still show improvement, how do you do it? You present normal numbers as unusually good ones. Here's a snippet of a news release from the White House sent out during the speech.

Trump was president for 11.5 days in January. His predecessor was president for 19.5 days. Four months last year, the economy added more jobs than were added in January. The economy was generally healthy, and the economy remains generally healthy. If we're on the right track now, we've been on the right track for about four years.

The only thing that's changed substantially is how the American president talks about it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis | Parsing Donald Trump's description of an economically broken America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Credit for President Trump's surprise electoral victory in November is often given to his ferocious excoriation of the existing economic order. His speeches regularly focused on bad trade deals, jobs shipped overseas and an economy that was barely off the mat, leaving regular Americans behind.

# data[].attributes.headline
Immigrants Aren't Taking American's Jobs

# data[].attributes.subject
Immigrants Aren't Taking American's Jobs

# data[].attributes.body
"High-skilled immigrants, especially in technology and science, who have come in larger numbers in recent years, had a significant “positive impact” on Americans with skills, and also on working-class Americans. They spurred innovation, helping to create jobs."
- Julia Preston (NYTimes)
In this article, the author is referencing how the influx of immigrants to the United States has actually advanced our economy and added jobs. This article uses information gathered in a report on the effect of immigrants on American jobs, in direct opposition of the information that Trump and his team have been circulating regarding immigrants in this country. This article relates back to history in that immigration is leading to more jobs, which is similar to what happened in the American Gilded Age. During the gilded age, the US experienced many refugees entering the country in search of jobs, and instead of us losing jobs, the country entered an industrial revolution, which created thousands of jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
"The current wars have been paid for almost entirely by borrowing. This borrowing has raised the US budget deficit, increased the national debt, and had other macroeconomic effects, such as raising consumer interest rates."http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic  September 2016 Watson Institute Brown University.
This relates to World War 2, because World War 2 had a great impact on America economically. Now currently the U.S. is spending more money on military but its causing America problems. (Allie Avila)

# data[].attributes.headline
"'We are in the fourth longest expansion in U.S. history,' notes Achuthan.Since World War II, the American economy has typically grown for about five years and then had a contraction. This expansion is already over seven years old.Furthermore, the average pace of job growth in this recovery has already topped what happened during the 2001 to 2007 expansion under President George W. Bush (the Bush recovery was the slowest in terms of jobs growth, Achuthan says)." --- Heather Long and Tami Luhby (CNNMoney, 2016)

# data[].attributes.subject
"'We are in the fourth longest expansion in U.S. history,' notes Achuthan.Since World War II, the American economy has typically grown for about five years and then had a contraction. This expansion is already over seven years old.Furthermore, the average pace of job growth in this recovery has already topped what happened during the 2001 to 2007 expansion under President George W. Bush (the Bush recovery was the slowest in terms of jobs growth, Achuthan says)." --- Heather Long and Tami Luhby (CNNMoney, 2016)

# data[].attributes.body
In this segment, Heather Long and Tami Luhby are discussing the patterns of growth and contraction in U.S. Economic History. They explain that since the World War II time period was an exception to normal economic patterns, the patterns have steady since that day and age. During World War II, the U.S. was experiencing more than five years of growth before a contraction. Relating to America in current events, the period of time during World War II is being compared to the amount of growth that the current economy is experiencing. The current pace of job growth is currently nearing the pace of job growth in the WWII age, as well as surpassing a previous large job growth rate expansion under President Bush. The fact that we are in the midst of the fourth largest economic expansion in U.S. History shows that the American economy is thriving. (JAKE GREENWALD)

# data[].attributes.headline
"Trump's promise to bring back our jobs from crooked China and ensure that all of our products are made right here in the USA runs completely counter to reality."" (Hannah Bolandian)

# data[].attributes.subject
"Trump's promise to bring back our jobs from crooked China and ensure that all of our products are made right here in the USA runs completely counter to reality."" (Hannah Bolandian)

# data[].attributes.body
This article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When right-wing commentators are not making bizarre apologies for sexual-assault braggart Donald Trump's "locker room talk," they are praising him for how great he is on trade. Trump talks big about how he will bring back jobs, not let them leave in the first place, and place tariffs on goods made in other countries, punishing corporations that offshore jobs. On this topic, like every other, Trump could be said to be stretching the truth so much it practially violates the Geneva Conventions, as he has been a prime offshorer of jobs on his path to billionaire status and has a well-documented history of treating small businesses and craftspeople like crap.

Much like his other bold policy prescriptions, Trump's promise to bring back our jobs from crooked China and ensure that all of our products are made right here in the USA runs completely counter to reality. His history of outsourcing his products is as long as his history of bankruptcies-in fact, he has previously sung the praises of outsourcing, even promoting outsourcing to students at his fraudulent Trump University.

"Outsourcing Creates Jobs in the Long Run," was the headline of a course description Trump wrote for Trump U in 2005, the same year he boasted to Billy Bush about grabbing women by their genitals. "We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs-how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses," Trump (or his ghostwriter) opened. "But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing."

But it wasn't until an appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman in 2012 when Trump was publically mocked and exposed as a serial and deceptive outsourcer of jobs. Trump was boasting incoherently about his crappy ties and where they were made, when Letterman chimed in and said, "They were made in China and Bangladesh."

So just how much of Trump's products are made overseas? Here's the complete list.
1. Trump apparel
The Donald J. Trump Collection includes ties, suits, dress shirts, eyeglasses and other accessories. Trump shirts were made in China, Bangladesh, Honduras and Vietnam.

The Clinton campaign has pounced on many of these glaring hypocrisies in many ads in several key swing states.
2. Trump home Items
That's right, you can adorn your home with the Trump label and risk your house either being foreclosed or falling into a sink hole. Trump Home offers a variety of items including chandeliers, mirrors, bedding, table lamps, cabinets, sofas, barstools, cocktail tables and more. Reports show that pretty much all of these items are made in a host of foreign countries, including China and Turkey.

The Clinton campaign has jumped on this as well, pointing to a trademark registration for the Trump Home brand that clearly shows picture frames and other home products that were made in India.
3. Trump hotel items
Trump's chain of luxurious hotels and opulent condos are the crowning achievements of his sprawling empire. When he's not going ballistic on Twitter at 3am like a jealous ex, or railing about how the Republican establishment has hung him out to dry, he's constantly boasting about all of his fabulous hotels.

The only problem is that virtually all of his hotel items are made in China and Taiwan.
4. Trump beverages
Nothing quenches one's thirst quite like having to drink something with the Trump label emblazoned across it. I'm referring of course to Trump Natural Spring Water, which is served at Trump hotels, restaurants and golf clubs. Believe it or not, Trump water comes from New York or Vermont, and is bottled in New York.

However, the same can't be said about the hilariously failed Trump Vodka.

Trump Vodka was manufactured at a distillery in the Netherlands, but the distribution company stopped carrying it in 2010. An Israeli company continued to carry Trump Vodka, although the version sold in Israel is different from the original Trump Vodka. The Trump Vodka produced and sold in Israel is made from ingredients that make it kosher for Passover, which made it a popular beverage around the holidays. However, the Jerusalem Post reported that none of the ingredients were actually kosher.

As Hillary Clinton has said at both debates now, Trump lives in his own reality. To be even more precise, Trump appears to be building (or rather paying unqualified Polish immigrants slave wages to build) a wall around reason and truth. His newfound love for America and protectionism runs counter to his years of amassing obscene wealth as a shady businessman. His ability to sell crap to his low-information basket of deplorables and have them screaming for seconds is accomplished purely by playing to their white rage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here Are All of the Trump Products Made Overseas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like everything else about his campaign, Trump's trade talk is a pure scam. When right-wing commentators are not making bizarre apologies for sexual-assault braggart Donald Trump's "locker room talk," they are praising him for how great he is on trade.

# data[].attributes.body
"The US government Changed H-1B visa Rules. Here's What it Means For Tech"

"'Premium processing' of H-1B visas, which allowed skilled workers to pay extra to request faster approval to work in the U.S., will no longer be available starting April 3, immigration authorities announced. That basically means all applicants will have to wait the standard period to see if they have won the "lottery," without the option to pay an extra $1,225 filing fee for guaranteed answer after 15 days. [...] Companies like IBM, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Apple have been among the top recipients of H-1B visas in past years, New York Times data analysis shows, aside from a massive swath of visas issued to consulting firms that are known to outsource. " -Anita Balakrishnan CNBC

This article written by Anita Balakrishnan from CNBC,  gives a description about H-1B which is a expedited temporary work visa issued to skilled foreign workers. The article talks about how the Trump Administration is changing it up by making the immigrants wait longer and having to pay lots of money to try an expedite the already expedited visa. Trump is doing this because he thinks companies should Americans the jobs instead. Trump is trying to help the current job crisis just like during the Great Recession where lots of Americans were unemployed. Ms.Balakrishnan seems a little skeptical of this mentioning that lots of companies are mad at Trump and what he has done. Finally Anita mentions that this order is supposed to be set in place at the same time all the H-1B application are getting from lots of companies, so it is going to be interesting on who they let work and who they have wait. It's going to be chaos!

# data[].attributes.headline
"In a lot of ways, intergenerational poverty is something that they inherited and that they've lived with as part of a family tradition. I think part of that means they've grown up with a certain resentment at rich people. But it also means that, for them, the upward mobility that a lot of folks experienced right after World War II was their first real taste of economic optimism, and I think that's something that really gave them a lot of hope. And ultimately, as I write later in the book, that hope didn't really materialize." --- JD Vance (NPR, 2016)

# data[].attributes.subject
"In a lot of ways, intergenerational poverty is something that they inherited and that they've lived with as part of a family tradition. I think part of that means they've grown up with a certain resentment at rich people. But it also means that, for them, the upward mobility that a lot of folks experienced right after World War II was their first real taste of economic optimism, and I think that's something that really gave them a lot of hope. And ultimately, as I write later in the book, that hope didn't really materialize." --- JD Vance (NPR, 2016)

# data[].attributes.body
Mr. Vance, the author of Hillbilly Elegy, explores the current economic plight of Americans in the Rust Belt, particularly through his family's experiences in West Virginia. An interesting component of his interview with Terry Gross was his understanding that many Americans truly believed in the American Dream after World War II. Yet, for many Americans, the economic prosperity that came to areas like Fairfield County (Westport, Darien, or Greenwich) never materialized because of a rapidly transforming economy, academic opportunities, and migration away. (DREW COYNE)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. My guest, J.D. Vance, is the author of the new best-seller "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir Of A Family And Culture In Crisis." He says the book is about what goes on in the lives of real people when the industrial economy goes south. He writes about the social isolation, poverty, drug use and the religious and political changes in his family and in greater Appalachia. He grew up in a Rust Belt town in Ohio in a family from the hills of eastern Kentucky. Until the age of 12, he spent summers in Jackson, Ky., with his grandmother and great-grandmother. Vance joined the Marines, which helped him afford college. After attending Ohio State University, he went to Yale Law School where he initially felt completely out of place. He has contributed to the National Review and is now a principal at a Silicon Valley investment firm.

J.D. Vance, welcome to FRESH AIR. There's a paragraph from your new book that I want you to read. It's on Page 2.

J D VANCE: There is an ethnic component lurking in the background of my story. In our race-conscious society, our vocabulary often extends no further than the color of someone's skin - black people, Asians, white privilege. Sometimes these broad categories are useful. But to understand my story, you have to delve into the details.

I may be white, but I do not identify with the WASPs of the Northeast. Instead, I identify with the millions of working-class white Americans of Scots-Irish descent who have no college degree. To these folks, poverty's the family tradition. Their ancestors were day laborers in the southern slave economy, sharecroppers after that, coal miners after that, and machinists and mill workers during more recent times. Americans call them hillbillies, rednecks or white trash. I call them neighbors, friends and family.

GROSS: Thanks for reading that. There's, you know, the line where you make a point of saying that your people were day laborers in the slave economy of the South. Reading between the lines there...

VANCE: Sure.

GROSS: ...What are you saying about class and race with that statement?

VANCE: Well, I guess, I'm not trying to say anything too explicit about race, but to note that poverty just goes back really, really far in the generational stories of these families. So the point I'm trying to make, ultimately, is that these folks have been poor for a very long time. In a lot of ways, intergenerational poverty is something that they inherited and that they've lived with as part of a family tradition. I think part of that means they've grown up with a certain resentment at rich people. But it also means that, for them, the upward mobility that a lot of folks experienced right after World War II was their first real taste of economic optimism, and I think that's something that really gave them a lot of hope. And ultimately, as I write later in the book, that hope didn't really materialize.

GROSS: You know, reading your book, I get the impression that you think - and I think rightfully so - that there's a lot of similarities between what poor people who are white endure in America and what poor people who are black endure in America. Sure, there's differences, too, but there's a lot of things in common. Yet, I'm wondering if you and the people who you grew up with made that connection at all and felt any sense of identification with black people who were your class counterparts.

VANCE: I never thought when I was a kid that there was a sense of competition or animosity towards poor blacks. I just thought there was a recognition that they lived differently - they primarily lived on the other side of town. And we're both poor, but that's kind of it. There wasn't much explicit statement of kinship or of the lack of kinship. Though, I will say there was one really interesting experience I had with my grandma where I started to realize that there was some sort of kinship at least that she felt. And I think I was very lucky to have that exposure to a woman who had lived the life she had but was able to think these thoughts. And what happened is that we were watching a golf tournament. And it was, I believe, the 1997 Masters, where Tiger Woods won.

I was a very young kid, maybe 19 or 20, and the only reason my grandma was watching it was because he was in it. She loved Tiger Woods. And the reason she liked Tiger Woods is because she saw him as an outsider that was shaking up a rich man's game. And there was this really interesting moment where after he won - and the Masters always has this ceremonial winner's dinner to celebrate the victor. One of the golfers said something to the effect of, what are we going to have at the winner's dinner - fried chicken and watermelon, which, of course, was this extraordinarily nasty racist comment.

But it struck me at that moment, one, that that fried chicken and watermelon was almost the cultural food of my people, and my grandma just got so viscerally angry. And she said, those a-holes, they're never going to let people like us be part of their crowd. And the sense that she had was they both looked down on the black people who were outsiders and the poor, white people who are outsiders. And she really saw the similarities. And that was the first real exposure that she felt some sort of kinship to people who looked very different from her but ultimately were similar in a lot of ways.

GROSS: Your family is from Jackson, Ky. And your grandparents moved to southwestern Ohio after that. But you spent a lot of time in Jackson growing up. Would you describe what that community was like physically and also just what it was like as a community?

VANCE: Jackson, Ky., is in southeastern Kentucky coal country. And it's this extraordinarily beautiful part of the Appalachian Mountains - pretty big hills, pretty severe, harsh landscape, but also just a very beautiful town with very beautiful people. It's about 6,000 people. There are only a couple of stoplights in town. There are maybe a few restaurants, most of them are fast-food restaurants. And the people are these extraordinarily sweet people who love the land and also love the people that they grew up around.

And when I was a kid, the first time I realized that there was something really unique about Jackson and its people, as I write in the book - there was a funeral motorcade passing by. And my grandma said, we have to get out. We have to stand at attention. And I said, you know, why, Mamaw (ph)? Why are we all doing this? Why does everybody stop and stand at attention when a funeral motorcade passes? And she said because, honey, we're hill people, and we respect our dead. And it made me realize that there was something very important about this identity of hill people that both my grandma and the rest of Jacksonians took on as a certain, you know, as a certain self-identifier.

GROSS: So you write that you consider your family part of a greater migration from Appalachia to Ohio. What is that period of migration that you're writing about? What is that larger wave that you feel your family is part of?

VANCE: So there were two big waves of migration - one right after World War I, the second right after World War II. And my grandparents were part of that second wave where literally millions of people moved from the hills of eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, eastern Tennessee into southern Ohio, into Michigan, into northern Ohio, Pennsylvania and so forth. And in many ways, the white part of the Rust Belt economy was really filled with these Appalachian migrants. There are various studies that suggest that at any given time, at least 30 percent of the population of some of these Rust Belt counties were directly from Appalachia. And of course, that doesn't count that the kids and grandchildren of the Appalachian migrants.

And so there was this sense, in southern Ohio especially - we called our hometown of Middletown Middletucky (ph) because so many of the residents actually came from Kentucky. There was a massive family-based recruiting program that brought migrants from eastern Kentucky into the southern Ohio steel mill where my grandpa worked. So it was this massive transplantation of one culture and one group of people into an entirely different area. And a lot of times, of course, they kept the culture, and they kept a lot of their habits with them when they moved.

GROSS: Yes. You write that a lot of the people who move from Appalachia to Ohio kept the culture. But your grandparents, you say, brought an ancient family structure from the hills and tried to make it work in a world of privacy and nuclear families, and it didn't quite fit. Would you explain?

VANCE: Sure. So in Appalachia, in eastern Kentucky, these families are extraordinarily large. And they're built on an extended network of kin. So grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins - they're all a part of the mix. And they all, ultimately, I think, are involved in family life in a way that's a little bit different from upper-income white people from the Northeast, for example.

And what I think my grandparents found when they moved north is that they didn't have quite that extended network of kin that so many of their people back in eastern Kentucky depended upon. So there was no grandma or grandpa to look after the kids. There wasn't help from aunts and uncles.

And I think my grandparents really struggled in a lot of ways without that big, extended family network that they had become so dependent upon and so reliant upon. It's really sad in a lot of ways because I think - you know, this is a slight aside.

But a lot of the modern social welfare state is built around a nuclear family. So when a kid enters a foster care system, for example, they're presented with an opportunity to go live with a licensed foster care parent or to stay with their parent, who's potentially abusive or neglectful. That's why they're in that situation in the first place.

And a lot of times, these child welfare bureaucracies ignore these extended networks of kin that are really important to these children's lives. And so that's one of the things I found when I was a kid - is that I wasn't really given an opportunity by the child welfare worker to go and live with mamaw and papaw, which is what I wanted to do.

What I was given - an opportunity was to either shut up or to go live with a complete stranger. And so it's not just that my grandparents, I think, were culturally disconnected from the modern WASPy nuclear family. But in a lot of ways, the broader community of Appalachians was thrust into a world that respected a different family structure than the one they came from.

GROSS: Why were you almost put in a foster home when you were 12 years old?

VANCE: So what happened is my mom, who was, in a lot of ways, this really wonderful person who tried very hard but also carried around the demons of her youth a little too much - she had come over to my grandma's house where I was staying. She had apologized for something she had done earlier. And she had offered to take me on this trip to go and do some fun things.

And it was supposed to be a big makeup trip. But what happened is that something ignited her temper while we were together. She sped up the car on the highway. Went over - you know, it seemed at the time like she was driving over 100 mph. And she just kept on saying, I'm going to crash this car and kill us both. I'm going to crash this car and kill us both.

And so what I did is hopped in the backseat to hide from her. And this got her really angry. And she stopped the car and pulled over and, I think, was going to start hitting me. And so I ran. I ran out of the car. We were in a pretty rural part of the state. And I actually ran through a field to a person's house.

And eventually, this set in chain a set of events where mom was arrested. She was charged with domestic violence. And I was made to sit in a police car until my grandparents and my sister came to rescue me. But that's what invited the child welfare bureaucracy into our lives - is that as soon as she was charged with domestic violence, it became a case of child abuse and neglect.

And I was effectively given a choice between - keep talking, and we're going to have to file charges, and we're going to have to take you out of the home - on the one hand. Or if you just keep quiet about things, then you can stay living with your family. And that was, of course, a pretty hard decision for a 12-year-old.

But luckily, I had enough faith in my grandma. I knew that she wouldn't let anything too bad happen to me. And so I lied to the people who asked whether something bad had happened. I remember my mom had a domestic violence hearing. And the judge asked whether she had done anything to threaten me. And I lied. I told him no because I knew that if I kept on pushing the case, one, it would cause a lot of problems for the family. And two, it might land me in a foster home.

GROSS: How did you feel about lying? You're always taught not to lie. And here you are at a hearing, lying. And you think it's for your good and your family's good. Nevertheless, it's a lie.

VANCE: The honest truth is that I didn't care at all about lying because I remember sitting in that courtroom and feeling in some ways that I was on the wrong side of an invisible line because the lawyers and the judge - they all talked a certain way. They all wore certain clothes. And I felt like they were outsiders.

They were the people that I was taught, in some way, to mistrust and to fear. They were rich people - whether they were actually rich - they seemed rich to me. And I noticed that in this little courtroom, all of the people who were subjected to the court system were like me. They were white people. They didn't wear that nice of clothes.

They were obviously very poor, both in the way that they talked and the way that they conducted themselves. And when I was asked to lie to that judge, frankly, I didn't feel bad at all because I knew that it was something that was necessary to protect my family and to protect myself.

And it's really interesting, looking back, that I didn't, you know - I'm a member of the bar now - that I didn't feel at all guilty about lying to a judge. And a big part of it is just because I felt like - look, my people are here. And they're being subjected to this system. These people are over there. And they're administering this system. And it's fine to tell a little white lie to them. And that's, of course, a little ironic because I was there, theoretically, because of my own protection.

But it was pretty clear to me, both in my exposure to the courthouse and my exposure to the child welfare bureaucracy, that the folks who were involved in our lives were outsiders. And what was most important was to push them out as quickly as possible.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is J.D. Vance. He's the author of the new best-selling memoir "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir Of A Family And A Culture In Crisis." Let's take a short break. And we'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is J.D. Vance, author of the new best-selling memoir "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir Of A Family And Culture In Crisis." And his family is from Kentucky and moved to Ohio. His grandparents moved to Ohio to a steel town there - what he calls now a Rust Belt town. So this is the story about his family and the larger story of Appalachian poverty.

Your grandfather was an alcoholic for many years. Your mother was addicted to various drugs for many years. And the way you describe it in your book, it sounds like both the area of Ohio where your family lived in and the area of Kentucky where they're from ended up having a lot of alcohol and drug problems there - drugs including heroin and opioids.

VANCE: That's absolutely right. And it's maybe even worse in southern Ohio than it is in eastern Kentucky, though it's certainly terrible in both. I saw a statistic a few weeks ago that in the Ohio county where I grew up, Butler County, deaths from drug overdoses actually outnumber deaths from natural causes. And that's just an extraordinary statistic. I don't know that that's ever been true in that area. It certainly hasn't been true in recent history.

And it goes to show how really rooted this opioid epidemic is. It's something that everyone thinks about and talks about. You see signs about support groups whenever you go back to these areas. And it's just an extraordinarily terrible thing that's happened to these communities. And I'm not sure that there's a super easy solution for how to get out of it.

GROSS: Do you feel like you saw it start to happen and then build?

VANCE: Absolutely. I definitely - in a lot of ways, I was at the ground floor of the opioid epidemic because I saw it happening with my mom before it had really reached crisis proportions. But in a lot of ways, she was just responding to the things that cause people to go and search for drugs in the first place.

She was a person, I think, who carried around a lot of emotional baggage, a lot of emotional turmoil and hurt from her own childhood. And so she turned to drugs. But a lot of people have done the same, of course, in the past five or 10 years, which is why these addiction rates - which is why these overdose rates are so high in these communities.

GROSS: What was your attitude towards drinking and drugs when you were growing up and seeing how it affected your grandfather, seeing how it affected your mother?

VANCE: Well, growing up as a young child, I think that I had attitudes pretty similar to a lot of kids, which is just, say no to drugs. These things are bad for you. They're immoral and so forth. But as I grew older, I started to be attracted, frankly, to the kids who were doing drugs, to the possibility of having a bit of an escape from a very chaotic and very troubling home life.

And so by the time I was 13 or 14, I was hanging out with kids who were doing drugs. And I was even starting to experiment myself. And it's funny that my grandma - she was so perceptive that she recognized that I was starting to do these things and that they were becoming a problem, I think, much earlier than a lot of kids' parents would have.

GROSS: What did she do when she realized it?

VANCE: (Laughter) Well, the first time she realized that I was hanging out with the wrong kids, she actually told me in a very menacing voice, look J.D., I'll give you a choice. You can either stop hanging out with these kids, or I'll run them over with my car.

GROSS: (Laughter).

VANCE: And trust me, no one will ever find out. And I don't think she would've actually run over 12 or 13-year-old kids with her car. But I sure thought she would. And so I actually did stop hanging out with the kids she told me I couldn't hang out with. A lot of kids don't listen to that demand when their parents make it. But I was so terrified of mamaw that I listened and listened good.

GROSS: I'm just thinking about the violence in your family. Your mother threatened to crash the car to kill both of you. You thought she might actually attack you. Your grandmother threatened to, like, run down the guys you were hanging out with. And you believed that she had it in her to do that.

Your mother was always - sounds like she was always arguing - and I mean, like, fighting, arguing with her husband - she had several of them - and her boyfriends. It seems to me you grew up in an atmosphere where violence was always a possibility, even among people who are supposed to love each other.

VANCE: That's absolutely true. Violence and chaos were an ever present part of the world that I grew up in. And unfortunately, it wasn't just in my family. Sometimes, you'd see, you know, mom fighting with one of her boyfriends. But a lot of times, you'd see people exploding on each other in a local restaurant or on the street. It was just this ever present part of the world that I grew up in.

And it's interesting that all of the people that I talk about in my book that grew up in this chaos that ended up having successful home lives and successful marriages - they married an outsider.

They married someone like I did who didn't grow up with these lessons, who didn't grow up with these experiences, and because of that, knew how to manage the people that they were married to and knew how to not respond in kind. As I write in the book, you put two of me in the same marriage, and I don't think it works.

But you put one of me, who's maybe a little self-reflective, in a marriage with somebody who hasn't faced that trauma - then I think you have a good chance. And that's one of the lessons of my life.

GROSS: My guest is J.D. Vance, author of the new book "Hillbilly Elegy." After we take a short break, we'll talk about what the conversation is like with family and friends when the subject turns to Donald Trump. And Ken Tucker will review the new album by the bluegrass group The Earls of Leicester, which pays tribute to Earl Flatt and Lester Scruggs. I'm Terry Gross. And this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross, back with J.D. Vance, author of the new best-seller "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir Of A Family And Culture In Crisis." He writes about the social isolation, poverty and religious and political changes in his family and in greater Appalachia. He grew up in a Rust Belt town in Ohio in a family from the hills of eastern Kentucky, where he spent summers when he was a boy.

Christianity was a presence in your life. But you say church wasn't that important. Your grandmother had a deeply personal faith. But she saw churches as breeding grounds for perverts and money changers. So what was the gap between faith and church?

VANCE: Absolutely. That was a really important part of my life. And so my grand - my - you know, Mamaw taught a very personal faith. She really loved the Christian faith. She loved God, and that was an important part of her life. But she was disconnected from a traditional religious institution. And it's interesting that we hear so much about how religion and evangelical faith is really important in these communities. But if you actually look at the statistics, lower-income Americans are increasingly less likely to go to church. So church is increasingly the province of upper-income and well-educated folks, despite a lot of the stereotypes that exist around religion.

The problem, of course, is that children who go to church, they are less likely to commit crimes, less likely to do drugs. And there's some really good evidence by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber that this relationship is causal. So in this world where a lot of things are falling apart, church can be a really important backstop, but less and less people are going to church. And that was certainly something that was true in my life.

GROSS: Your grandparents were both religious. They were deeply Christian. Why didn't they go to church?

VANCE: So there were a couple of reasons, I think. So one is that Mamaw just mistrusted a lot of the parts of institutional Christianity as she saw it. She saw that people were primarily asking for money and weren't actually that interested in the faith. And the other side of it - and I think that this is related - is that Mamaw saw church as increasingly an upper-crust institution.

There were a lot of churches in Middletown, Ohio, but there weren't a lot of churches in the very poor, white communities. They were typically in the wealthier suburbs. They were typically in the better-educated suburbs, the parts of Middletown where people were doing a little bit better off. And in some ways, I think Mamaw's approach to church was a leading indicator of what we're seeing a lot these days, which is that lower-income folks don't feel as comfortable in church and don't have as much exposure to church.

GROSS: Your father, who you lived with very briefly, was one of the few conservative Protestants you knew who attended church regularly. And when you briefly lived with him, you went to his church. And you were exposed to things like not believing in evolution. You say there was a big emphasis on the war against Christmas, as it's called (laughter), remarks about the gay lobby.

VANCE: Sure.

GROSS: So how did you how did you interpret that when you were exposed to - are those ideas that - like, did your grandmother not talk about the gay lobby? Was that not a part of her Christian view?

VANCE: No, she definitely didn't. And I think that was a big part of the modern fusion of conservative politics and evangelical Christianity. And because she was not part of a modern church, I don't think she ever picked up the rhetoric, some of the more political rhetoric of conservative Christianity. The juxtaposition between my dad's church's social importance and its teachings is really fascinating to me.

So on the one hand, my dad's church provided a lot of moral pressure, a good community of believers that really supported me and supported him. And that was really important, and it was really great, full of the best people, honestly, that I've ever known. But on the other hand, there was this sense that the outside world was starting to gang up on Christians. There was - you know, evolution was a lie that the devil told to get Christians to believe in modern science. There was a feeling that the gay lobby was making it more and more difficult for Christians to live their lives or to practice their faith - that it was impossible to speak your faith in the public square.

And all of this stuff taken together really meant that we felt isolated from the larger community. To be a Christian, in a lot of ways, meant to feel a certain mistrust for the broader community. And that has really problematic consequences because I needed church. I needed a lot of the good things that church provided. But as I grew older, it became increasingly hard for me to rationalize the importance of church in my life with the beliefs that it required that were at odds with modern science.

GROSS: Did you ever subscribe to those beliefs that are at odds with modern science or subscribe to the homophobia that you were taught in church?

VANCE: Absolutely. I used to go on chat rooms on AOL, back when those things existed, and argue with believers in evolution and argued with them that it was against God's law to believe in evolution. It was something I believed really personally. But as you grow up and you're exposed to more and more people from different walks of life and you realize that evolution is just a scientific truth - it doesn't necessarily have much to do with the Bible one way or the other - you start to realize that there are real conflicts in your church. And it makes it hard to believe that you can be a good Christian if you don't necessarily believe the teachings, all the way, of the church.

So it creates this conflict in people where you want to believe in modern science, but you also want to be a good Christian. And a lot of people can't do both at the same time in a very politicized, very conservative sort of Christianity.

GROSS: You read the "Left Behind" books when you were a teenager. And those are books - those are novels written by, you know, a Christian fundamentalist who - and the novels are about the rapture and about the tribulations after the good Christians are raised up to heaven and everybody else is left behind. As I recall, the devil, in at least the first installment of the "Left Behind" books, the great Satan is the head of the United Nations. So...

VANCE: (Laughter).

GROSS: ...Like, did you buy into that?

VANCE: That's exactly right. And I even remember, as a kid, wondering if Kofi Annan might be the Antichrist because he was then the secretary-general of the United Nations, when those books came out. But it's part-and-parcel of this idea that there's a war against Christians, this sense that the world is hopelessly corrupt, that institutions like the United Nations are going to produce the Antichrist. And when you are exposed to that sort of message, it is hard to simultaneously be a Christian but also engage meaningfully with the modern world.

GROSS: You really thought Kofi Annan might be the the great Satan?

VANCE: I was 12 years old, and it definitely crossed my mind. We would sit around and talk about where - you know, where is the Antichrist going to come from? Maybe it's Kofi Annan. Maybe it's - you know, it was definitely a conversation that we had. And of course, I don't know many secretary-generals of the United Nations. But I remember Kofi Annan because he was such a prominent part of my thinking when I was that age because yeah, I did think maybe this guy could be the Antichrist.

GROSS: I always wonder what impact thinking that the rapture is about to happen has on a child growing up because, on the one hand, if it's going to be the end of the world, like, why not do whatever you want? You know, like, why not get the instant gratification while the world still lasts, right? But on the other hand, if you do the wrong thing, you're not going to be raptured and you're going to be left behind to face the tribulation. So, you know, you're facing, like, two extreme choices there because you believe in an extreme and an immediate extreme.

VANCE: Yeah, that's absolutely right. And what's interesting about it is that you don't prepare for a material future when you think that you're going to be raptured. I had a friend who, no kidding, said he was going to take on as much debt as he wanted in college because he thought the rapture would happen before he had to pay it back. And, of course, that's not a really good way to go through life, if you're trying to live an upwardly mobile American life, is to think that, on the one hand, you need to be a good Christian and worry about how you're going to live your life - that's very important - but on the other hand, you can make as many terrible financial decisions as you want to because you'll never have to face the consequences of them.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is J.D. Vance. He's the author of the new memoir "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir Of A Family And Culture In Crisis." Let's take another short break and then we'll be back. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR, and if you're just joining us, my guest is J.D. Vance, author of the new book "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir Of A Family And Culture In Crisis." He writes about the social isolation, poverty, drug use, as well as religious and political changes in his family and in Greater Appalachia.

You describe yourself as conservative, and you've written for The National Review, a conservative magazine. You've become kind of famous for an article or two in which you try to explain why, you know, a lot of poor people would be voting for Trump. And in your writing and in your discussions, you've called Trump's promises the needle in America's collective vein. You've described Trump as the new pain reliever, trying to make comparisons between, you know, narcotisizing (ph) pain and what Trump is trying to do in explaining things away, easy solutions. Do you know a lot of people who are going to be voting for Trump or - yeah.

VANCE: I do. A lot of people in my family are going to be voting for Trump, a lot of my neighbors and friends from back home. So it's definitely a phenomenon I, I think, recognize and frankly saw coming pretty early. You know, it's interesting that I don't think the Trump phenomenon is exclusively about the white poor.

I think that it's more about the white working-class folks who aren't necessarily economically destitute but in some ways feel very culturally isolated and very pessimistic about the future. That's one of the biggest predictors of whether someone will support Donald Trump - it may be the biggest predictor - is the belief that America is headed in the wrong direction, the belief that your kids are not going to have a better life than you did.

And that cynicism really breeds frustration at political elites, but, frankly, that frustration needs to find a better outlet than Donald Trump. And that's why I've made some of the analogies that I have because I don't think that he's going to make the problem better. I think, like you said, he is in some ways a pain reliever. He's someone who makes people feel a little bit better about their problems. But whether he's elected president or not, those problems are still going to be there, and we've got to recognize that.

GROSS: So when you're having a discussion about the presidential race with someone in your family, someone who's going to be voting for Trump, what is that conversation like?

VANCE: It typically starts with me making a point that I just made, which is, look, maybe Trump is recognizing some legitimate problems. He's talking about the opioid epidemic in a way that nobody else is. But he's not going to fix the problem. You know, better trade deals is not going to make all of these problems just go away.

And typically my family actually recognizes that. That's what I find so interesting. They don't think that this guy is going to solve all their problems. They just think he's at least trying and he's saying things, primarily to the elites, that they wish they could say themselves. So it's really interesting. There's a recognition that Trump isn't going to solve a lot of these problems, but he's, at the end of the day, the only person really trying to tap into this frustration.

And it's, you know, I - so my dad is a Trump supporter, and I love my dad, and I always say, Dad, you know, Trump is not going to actually make any of these problems better. And he says, well, that's probably true, but at least he's talking about them and nobody else is and at least he's not Mitt Romney. At least he's not George W. Bush. He's at least trying to talk about these problems.

And I think it's amazing how low the bar has been set by the political conversation we've had for the past 20 or 30 years that this guy, who many people don't think is going to solve the problems, is still getting a lot of support from people who are blue-collar white folks.

GROSS: I think a lot of people are mystified that working-class people would find anything to relate to in somebody whose accent might sound working class but was born into wealth and has, you know, is a billionaire if you, you know, listen to what he says about his net worth and who has, you know, like, you know, gold all over his many properties. I mean, there's - he's - it's such an extravagantly flaunting it rich lifestyle that he leads. Like, it's always a little hard to understand why somebody who so strongly identifies as working class would think that somehow he'd be able to best represent their interests.

VANCE: I certainly understand why a lot of folks are surprised. I think a big part of it is just the way that Donald Trump conducts himself. A lot of people feel that you can't trust anything Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama say, not because they necessarily lied a lot but because they sound so filtered and they sound so rehearsed. Donald Trump, if nothing else, is relatable to the average working-class American because he speaks off the cuff. He's clearly unfiltered and unrehearsed.

And there is something relatable about that, even if, you know, half of the things that he says don't make any sense or a quarter of the things that he says are offensive. There's something to be said about relatability. And it's not, you know - there's been a lot written about how elite political conversation is not emotionally relatable to big chunks of the country. I think that in a lot of ways, Trump is just the first person to tap into that sense of disconnect in the way that he conducts himself with politics.

GROSS: So, as a conservative who thinks that Trump does not have the answers and isn't qualified to be president...

VANCE: Sure.

GROSS: ...What are you going to do this election, if you don't mind saying?

VANCE: My current plan is to vote either third party or, as I joked to my wife, I might write in my dog because that's about as good as it seems. But, you know, I think there's a chance, if I feel like Trump has a really good chance of winning, that I might have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. But at the end of the day, I just feel like she is so culturally disconnected from the people that I grew up around that it would be very, very hard for me to cast my ballot for her. So ultimately I think I'll probably vote third party. I might vote for this new guy who I really like, Evan McMullin, who I actually met the other day. But I think that I'm going to vote third party because I can't stomach Trump. I think that he's noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place. And ultimately I just don't share Hillary Clinton's politics.

GROSS: I'm just curious, though, in terms of the cultural difference you see between your life and the Clintons' - like, Hillary Clinton's mother was, I think, poor. Bill Clinton had a single mother who was somewhere between poor and working class. They have a lot of money now. You have a lot of money now.

VANCE: Yeah. So I think that there are obviously a lot of things that are relatable about Hillary and Bill Clinton. But fundamentally, they've surrounded themselves by very elite people who went to very elite universities. And because of that, both in the way they conduct themselves and the things they seem to care about - they just seem very different from the people that I grew up around. And that makes it very hard for me to feel that Clinton - Hillary or Bill Clinton are very relatable.

GROSS: The title of your memoir is "Hillbilly Elegy." What do you think of the word hillbilly? It's often used as a pejorative expression. You say people you know call themselves that.

VANCE: Yeah, I think it's an insider's term. It's something that my grandma once told me, we're allowed to call ourselves hillbillies - and we did - but nobody else is allowed to call us hillbillies. So it's very much a term of endearment for the people who use it about themselves and their families. But it's definitely pejorative and it's definitely the sort of term where if someone called me a hillbilly and meant it seriously, I'd be very, very offended.

GROSS: I want to thank you so much for talking with us.

VANCE: Yeah, Terry, thank you so much for having me. I really enjoyed chatting with you.

GROSS: J.D. Vance is the author of the new memoir, "Hillbilly Elegy." After we take a short break, Ken Tucker will review the new album by the bluegrass group The Earls of Leicester which pays tribute to Earl Flatt and Lester Scruggs. This is FRESH AIR.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Hillbilly Elegy' Recalls A Childhood Where Poverty Was 'The Family Tradition'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. My guest, J.D. Vance, is the author of the new best-seller "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir Of A Family And Culture In Crisis." He says the book is about what goes on in the lives of real people when the industrial economy goes south.

# data[].attributes.headline
First, think about the various issues that we have looked at in America's Economic History, from labor to new technologies.  Once you have found a period that interests you, find one current event / news story that relates to this issue from America’s past.  In that unique news article, you need to find one best quote that showcases that economic issue.  Include the person’s name, date, and also the link to the article.  Once you have done that, write up a brief response that explains how this issue connects with a historical period from our slideshow.

# data[].attributes.subject
First, think about the various issues that we have looked at in America's Economic History, from labor to new technologies.  Once you have found a period that interests you, find one current event / news story that relates to this issue from America’s past.  In that unique news article, you need to find one best quote that showcases that economic issue.  Include the person’s name, date, and also the link to the article.  Once you have done that, write up a brief response that explains how this issue connects with a historical period from our slideshow.