eas or bad ideas? Well in the political realm we deal with tariffs the way we deal with people, stupidly.

Let me give you an example. There was a Democrat once who did some bad things and therefore all Democrats are bad. That's how we look at tariffs. Well there's one situation I could think of where a tariff would be bad which would be a tariff on a good that we couldn't get anywhere else and so the price is passed on to us. Yeah don't do that one. Don't do that one. This is not hard. You just don't do that one. So I'm in favor of tariffs because a country has to have them to protect itself, to protect its important industries.

Trump wants to do an emergency declaration to drastically increase nuclear energy production. So he would get rid of some regulations and be faster about approving new things etc. But also approving new drilling. So he'd be an emergency declaration to get the government organized and just very quickly getting our energy production up. That is exactly right. That is 100% economically, logically, geopolitically correct. All good.

So he wants to eliminate 10 regulations for every new one. He wants to get Elon Musk working on efficiency of the government. That could be amazing. Just copy Estonia. And sovereign wealth fund. So Trump wants to use the tariffs. He wants to use the money he gets from the tariffs to create a sovereign wealth fund. Now what that is is a fund that's managed by a country so that's the sovereign part. So other countries have these and it could be used for infrastructure and other national projects. Okay I mean it would depend what the other projects are I guess but in concept that sounds okay.

Trump wants to spur the economic growth of course and close the border, make the borders secure and lower the crime and he wants to put a bunch into R&D, offering 100% bonus depreciation for new manufacturing investment. Right, so these are good things. Now by the way Harris has some good things too so it's not all good things compared to bad things. They both got some things.

But here's my problem with analyzing economic plans. If part of your plan is growth and part of your plan is tax changes, which of those two things can somebody measure easily? Well maybe not easily but if you're an analyst you could look at the change in taxes and you could make some assumptions about revenue and then you could say okay Trump's plan will do this to the deficit and Kamala Harris's will do this to the deficit. Do you think somebody did that? Yes they did. I'm not going to name names but if you see somebody say the Trump plan will increase the deficit by four trillion or something and the Harris plan will increase the deficit by one point something trillion, are we done? Oh no one of them increases the debt more than the other so we're done right? You don't want the one that increases the debt more. Or do you?

Here's something I learned in corporate America. You only manage to the things you can measure. You can measure, predict what the tax income will be if you just make assumptions that everything else will be the same. If everything else is the same and the only thing you did is change the taxes you could kind of calculate what the tax gains would be. But here's what you can't calculate. The offsetting benefit is the growth. So if you cut your taxes more aggressively to get more growth, where's that? They don't even calculate it.

So if you see somebody say that Trump would add to the deficit more than Kamala Harris they're only looking at half of the equation. They're just looking at a direct tax cut. How much would you collect? But that's not the game. The game is tha