Robert David

-And Why the Midwest and Deep South Will Suffer Most From Trump/Musk Wreckanomics

Abstract

The fantasy premise that Republican economic policies favor red states and are damaging to blue states rests on a fundamental misconception. This study focuses on how the United States economy is structurally destabilized because of Trump’s spending policies and Musk’s corporate strategies, and how this systematically injures the economy of the Deep South and Midwest.

Drawing on historical analogies, sophisticated economic modeling, and comparative research, this analysis proves that a potent combination of federal budget cuts, automation-related unemployment, and the de-industrialization of the economy will lead to an irreversible economic collapse. The study also explains why states that depend on diversified economies-California, New York, and Illinois-will be prosperous, whilst those states that rely on federal spending will be caught in an enduring economic depression.

Introduction: The False Security of Red-State Economics

For years now, states ruled by Republicans have continuously benefited from this contradiction: they sun out policies for minimal government intervention while still receiving much-needed federal funding. The economic strategies of Trump, when combined with Musk’s methods of labor and production, shall shatter this glass balance. This type of collapse will not be even; states especially in the Deep South and Midwest which have held onto their unvaried economy will suffer the most.

Research Questions

1. How do federal subsidies impact the economic stability of red states versus blue states?

Federal subsidies profoundly influence the economy of both red and blue states, although their distribution and impacts differ greatly. For example, red states receive lower economic diversification; income from federal subsidies through agriculture, defense contracts, and social programs such as Medicaid. In simpler terms, these subsidies serve as a critical lifeline for states that often depend upon government support to strengthen their economy. On the other hand, blue states have stronger economies that are more based on technology, finance, and services. While they do not receive as much federal aid directly, they tend to benefit from greater investment in infrastructure, research, and development.

The reliance on subsidies might foster federal funding dependency that discourages innovative investments, which in turn affects the long ranging economic growth of red states. Red states are most likely to focus on maintaining industry, the red states heavily subsidize themselves through federal funds that might have been organically competitive. In contrast, blue states have more varied economically productive industries. Eventually, these variances in subsidizing regions can worsen economic gaps where red states lag behind with slower growth and having an economy that lacks resilience.

2. What are the macroeconomic implications of Trump’s fiscal policies?

The short-term consequences of Trump’s economic policies, particularly the tax deductions and the deregulation policies, were very stimulating, but exacerbated income inequality as well as the national deficit. For example, the tax deductions that were made significantly lowered taxes for the wealthiest individuals and corporations which led to an increase in disposable income, corporate profits, and subsequently supported stock market records. Sadly, these policies’ advantages were not distributed with equity and a large portion of the tax deductions were paid by increased federal debts, resulting in greater national debt.

Trump’s financial policies during his presidency boosted the economy in energy, manufacturing, and agriculture in red states, but this growth was not uniform across the board. Consequently, lower middle-income families and economically challenging regions were left behind. From a macro perspective, the spending cuts combined with the tax cuts have led to unsustainable results. The cuts have increased federal debt and strained future government expenditure, which is likely to culminate in adverse economic consequences in the future. States that are overly dependent on federal aid suffer the most from these policies, as they're most at risk of becoming reliant on the aid.

3. How do Musk’s automation and corporate strategies accelerate economic collapse?

Out of all the economic sectors, the ones that are most adversely affected by Musk’s traditional corporate strategies, focusing solely on automation and artificial intelligence, are the already weakened ones. Like the states whose economies primarily hinge upon the agricultural, mining, and manufacturing sectors. In those states, Musk’s automation technologies which are used in SpaceX and Tesla, remove low wage employment opportunities in the primary industries. Instead, those jobs are substituted for high paying skilled tech jobs that require a great deal of expertise that many blue-collar workers from red states do not possess.

Furthermore, Musk's strategy of minimizing workforce expenses and sourcing production from cheaper regions impacted local industries. Even though some sectors, such as automobile manufacturing, may benefit from increased productivity in the short-run due to automation, the long-term consequence is a reduced workforce in these blue-collar industries. This deepens economic stagnation in places that rely on these industries, which results in worsening unemployment, increased wealth inequality, and deepened skill gaps.

4. Which economic models predict long-term trends for affected states?

The long-term economic trends for states negatively impacted by Trump’s policies and Musk’s corporate strategies can be predicted using several economic models:

·       The Solow-Swan Growth Model: This model highlights the importance of capital accumulation, technological advancements, and changes to the labor force in long term economic growth. In regions impacted by automation and social spending, growth rates may stagnate in the long term if there is insufficient investment in human capital or in new industries alongside technological progress that displaces people from their jobs. If red states are unable to accommodate such technological advancements or restructures to the economy, they are likely to face declining growth and deteriorating standards of living in the future.

·       Endogenous Growth Theory: This model demonstrates how economic growth can be sustained through innovations, new knowledge, and human capital. Those states that allocate resources towards education, technology, and infrastructure investment will reap greater benefits in the long run, even with the increasing automation. Red states that do not invest in any of these aspects may stagnate or even contract, due to the increased reliance on automation and competition from abroad that erodes the low skills industry.

·       RBC (Real Business Cycle) Model: This model demonstrates how economic growth can be sustained through innovations, new knowledge, and human capital. Those states that allocate resources towards education, technology, and infrastructure investment will reap greater benefits in the long run, even with the increasing automation. Red states that do not invest in any of these aspects may stagnate or even contract, due to the increased reliance on automation and competition from abroad that erodes the low skills industry.

·       Keynesian Economic Models: From a Keynesian angle, the government performs a vital role in stabilizing the economic system via fiscal and monetary rules. In the context of pink states, the dependence on federal subsidies and the financial dangers posed via Trump’s rules should result in expanded volatility. If the federal authorities fails to provide enough guide for the duration of intervals of economic downturn, the bad outcomes ought to linger longer, deepening financial instability.

In the long term, states that fail to diversify their economies and adapt to technological disruptions will probably revel in stagnant or declining financial performance, main to higher unemployment, inequality, and more dependence on federal assistance. Conversely, those that focus on investment in training, era, and infrastructure can also broaden extra resilient economies capable of weathering destiny financial shifts.

Methodology

This paper utilizes:

• Economic Modeling: Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) and Input-Output (I-O) models to quantify the impact of spending cuts.
• Case Studies: Analyzing industrial shifts in Michigan, Ohio, and Alabama.
• Historical Comparison: Comparing past economic downturns to current policy impacts.

The Economic Myth: Who Really Benefits from Federal Spending?

A common misconception is that blue states rely more heavily on federal funds. In reality, red states receive disproportionate federal funding relative to their tax contributions.

Red states are particularly vulnerable to budget cuts, as they lack diversified economies capable of offsetting federal aid reductions.

The 12 Economic Powerhouse States: The Backbone of U.S. GDP

12 states generate 65% of national GDP, making them key drivers of the American economy.

Economic Risk Analysis

• GDP Shrinkage Projection: If Trump's budget cuts remove $1.5 trillion from federal spending, economic shrinkage in red states will range between 5-12%.
• Job Loss Estimates: Musk's automation and offshoring strategies are projected to eliminate 1.8 million jobs in the Midwest alone by 2035.

The Trump-Musk Economic Spiral: A Perfect Storm of Economic Destruction

Trump’s Budget Cuts: Strangling the Rural Economy

Healthcare Cuts: The Death of Rural America

• Medicaid & Medicare Reductions: $1.8 trillion cut over the next decade.
• Rural Hospital Closures: Over 600 hospitals at risk, leading to tens of thousands of job losses and increased mortality rates.
• Increased Disease and Death Rates: The elimination of Medicaid expansion will leave millions without access to care.

Education Cuts: Workforce Deterioration

• 40% Drop in Federal Education Spending
• Deep South Impact: Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia rank lowest in K-12 education. Further cuts will devastate workforce readiness.

Musk’s Economic Policies: The Automation Collapse

Case Study: The Midwest Auto Industry’s Collapse

• 30,000 job losses from Ford, GM, and Stellantis layoffs due to automation.
• Musk’s refusal to unionize Tesla factories lowers wages and benefits.
• Trump tariffs on Chinese steel raise production costs, forcing plant closures.

Conclusion: The Permanent Economic Devastation of Red America

Trump’s policies and Musk’s corporate strategies are engineering an economic disaster on the way to cripple the very states that help the two of them the maximum. While varied blue states will conflict and get better financially, crimson states might be left with fewer jobs, declining wages, and a permanent economic despair. By the time the dirt settles, the question would be whether those states can recover. It can be whether they are able to continue to exist at all, economically.

Policy Recommendations

1.    Investment in Workforce Development: Increase federal and state funding for job retraining programs.

2.    Diversification Incentives: Offer tax incentives for industries beyond oil, coal, and manufacturing.

3.    Federal Safety Net Protections: Ensure Medicaid, Medicare, and unemployment benefits remain intact.

Without intervention, the long-term economic prospects of red states will remain bleak, further widening the economic disparity in America.

For those who love the Red Propaganda:

The U.S. unemployment rate at the end of President Trump's first term in office (January 2021) was 6.7%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for December 2020. This figure was significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels due to the economic impact of COVID-19, which caused widespread job losses and economic disruption.

Key Context:

• Pre-pandemic unemployment (February 2020): 3.5%, a 50-year low.
• Peak during the pandemic (April 2020): 14.8%, the highest since the Great Depression.
• December 2020 (end of Trump's term): 6.7%, reflecting partial recovery but still elevated due to ongoing pandemic effects.

Regarding "Real, Non-Propaganda Numbers":

The BLS is a nonpartisan, credible source for unemployment data. However, some critics argue that the official unemployment rate (U-3) doesn't capture the full picture, as it excludes:

• Underemployed workers (e.g., part-time workers who want full-time jobs).
• Discouraged workers who have stopped looking for work.

For a broader measure, the BLS also publishes the U-6 unemployment rate, which includes underemployed and discouraged workers. In December 2020, the U-6 rate was 11.7%, nearly double the official U-3 rate.

Conclusion:

• Official unemployment rate (U-3): 6.7% (December 2020).
• Broader measure (U-6): 11.7% (December 2020).

These numbers reflect the economic challenges during the pandemic and are widely accepted as accurate, though the U-6 rate provides a more comprehensive view of labor market conditions. Trump left office with over 11% unemployment in real numbers. If or when he leaves office in 2028, the number will be double that, or more, 23.4% or higher. None of which affects the Dynasties of Trump or Musk.

The Economic Collapse: How Trump and Musk Will Break the Back of All 50 States

###