His stated aim is to return jobs to the US as China has been "stealing" them and "ripping of America" for years.
What he doesn't see, or more likely won't admit to is the fact that these jobs were not stolen but given to China by people exactly like him.
For instance all his (now failed) clothing line were manufactured in China, Indonesia and other countries.
Why?
Because clothing made in the US was too expensive and can't compete.
Now he wants manufacturing (and jobs) to come back to the US.
The only way that can happen is for employees in the US to take lower wages than they get now which means that would be little more than state sanctioned economic slavery.
Alternatively manufacturers can automate and that means faster cheaper production but fewer jobs.
Therefore production can increase but employment (number of consumers with an income) decrease.
So what is the answer to this conundrum?
In countries that really want to address the actual problems and not just appeal to their limited supporter base are stating to seriously discuss the guaranteed universal income.
This is where everyone receives a state income that gives them basic economic security without having to work.
That means that they don't have to work two jobs to make a basic income or run around in circles to satisfy governments that they are actively looking for work.
This has been done successfully in other countries, yes, even in the US under Nixon, and is now resurfacing in many countries.
Even here in Australia it's gaining traction.
Personally I don't know if it will eventually work successfully, I think it will but we would be doing all people of the world a huge disservice if we don't discuss or test this in different societies and not just try to turn back the clock to a golden age that never actually existed for everyone.
Outside of the US it's possible that this will get a fair trial.
It's happening in Scotland, Finland, Canada, Netherlands and Barcelona. and probably others that I am not aware of.
So, its being discussed but what does it all mean to the recipients?
Does it mean you get to stay home and drink beer all day while watching TV?
Maybe for a few that would be true but consider someone who really wants to look after their family but spend so much time working flat out in one or maybe two jobs top stop their family from starving. This is a trap as they can't risk trying to improve themselves in case they lose the income they have but can barely survive on what they earn.
Give them a guaranteed income and that all changes. They now have time to up skill for a higher paid job or look for a better job without starving or maybe start a cottage industry.
The big thing is, for the first time with this scheme, there are now options.
Without the stigma of being on welfare or starving if you get sick peoples lives have already improved and the only way from there is up unless you choose to do nothing.
In that case society wears the cost and good luck to you.
With automation increasing in all industries everyday this is not really something that can be ignored and any country that does, does so at their peril.
Basically jobs are not coming back, not now, not ever so it has to be planned for as early as possible so it can be proved and implemented in a controlled fashion.
Failure is not an option.
