1. NORTH AMERICA
ROUBINI RESEARCH +1 (212) 897 6777 NEW YORK Americas@Roubini.com
YOUR INSIGHT MULTIPLIER +44 (0) 207 207 8800 LONDON Europe@Roubini.com
+65 6236 1600 SINGAPORE Asia@Roubini.com
© 4CAST-RGE LIMITED (company no.: 10179978) 2016 - All Rights Reserved. No duplication or redistribution of this document is permitted without written consent.
1
Page | 1
November 4, 2016
The Art of the Surreal:Trumponomics and the Election
By Peter Stevens and Kevin Harris
Bottom line: In the final countdown to the election, Donald Trump has managed to erode much of Hillary Clinton’s
lead. That has brought Trump’s murky economic plans closer to fruition, with the election having already put the
candidate’s populistideasand extremeviews into general circulation.Though our basecaseremainsa Clinton victory,
governance is likely to become even more difficultin the years ahead—no matter who wins.
Figure 1: Voters’ Confidence in the Integrity of the Election Outcome
Source: Pew Research Center
Donald Trump has legitimized somefairly extreme views by shrewdly exploitingdissatisfaction with thegovernment,
the economy and overall social trends in the U.S. In addition to rupturing the GOP, spookingmarkets and alienating
corporate America, he has also managed to dividethe economics profession into rival (if lopsided) factions,despite
the fact that Trump’s policy proposals are simply not clear enough to evaluate. Hillary Clinton’s plans, though
somewhat variable,arequite detailed—a contrastwe stressed in previous work on the candidates’ policy positions.
Objectively,itshould be difficult for economists to make a casefor Trump’s policies under thosecircumstances,but
it was nevertheless possible to find 306 of them to sign a letter supporting Trump over Clinton. Though the anti-
Trump camp wins on both numbers (381) and prestige (72 Nobel laureates; 20 Nobel laureates in economics; 10
times as many academics at top schools), the scorn of “big league” economists hardly diminishes Trump’s anti-
establishment appeal. After all, much of Trump’s base relishes his rejection of orthodox economic prescriptions,
most notably with respect to free trade.
The fact that Trump’s disjointed economic plans have traction among voters and certain economists is a sign of
things to come. Justas government will haveto contend with post-Trump realities—or an actual Trump presidency—
policy makers and economists will haveto come to grips with the populistcurrents unleashed by the election. Janet
Yellen may be one step ahead of the curve in this regard, recently suggesting that the Fed let the economy run hot
for a while.
Should Trump win on November 8, Yellen and other mainstream economists could be in danger of being run over
by the Trump Train—demoted, sidelined or, inevitably, “FIRED!” This would concentrate authority in the hands of
Trump and his band of economic advisors, which is notably light on economists (financiers and real -estate
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Mar-16 Oct-16 Mar-16 Oct-16 Mar-16 syz
Not too much/None at all A great deal/Fair amount
ALL VOTERS CLINTON VOTERS TRUMP VOTERS
Oct-16

2. NORTH AMERICA
ROUBINI RESEARCH +1 (212) 897 6777 NEW YORK Americas@Roubini.com
YOUR INSIGHT MULTIPLIER +44 (0) 207 207 8800 LONDON Europe@Roubini.com
+65 6236 1600 SINGAPORE Asia@Roubini.com
© 4CAST-RGE LIMITED (company no.: 10179978) 2016 - All Rights Reserved. No duplication or redistribution of this document is permitted without written consent.
2
Page | 2
developers—includingsomecampaign donors—havebeen recruited instead).Given Trump’s hazy campaign pledges,
his brand of economic statecraft would likely be a singular blend of tax cuts, deregulation, fiscal stimulus and
protectionistmeasures. Or something completely different. With Trump, one never knows quite what to expect.
Figure 2: Economists Join the Fray (Clinton/Trump supporters at top U.S. universities; statements by rival camps)
Source: The Hill, Nobel Laureates for Clinton, Wall Street Journal, U.S. News & World Report (ranking)
Rank School Anti-Clinton Anti-Trump
-- TOTAL 24 251
1 Harvard University 0 12
1
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
1 29
1 Princeton University 1 24
1 University of Chicago 2 16
5 Stanford University 1 22
5
University of
California—​Berkeley
0 14
7 Northwestern University 0 11
7 Yale University 1 22
9
University of
Pennsylvania
1 4
10 Columbia University 1 12
11 New York University 2 35
11
University of
Minnesota—​Twin Cities
4 4
13
University of
Michigan—​Ann Arbor
0 3
13
University of
Wisconsin—​Madison
0 4
15
California Institute of
Technology
0 3
15
University of
California—​Los Angeles
1 17
15
University of
California—​San Diego
0 0
18 Cornell University 1 5
19 Brown University 0 3
19
Carnegie Mellon
University (Tepper)
0 4
19 Duke University 3 2
22
University of
Maryland—​College Park
3 1
22 University of Rochester 1 0
24 Boston University 0 2
24 Johns Hopkins University 0 2
26
University of Texas at
Austin
1 0
Anti-Clinton Camp
The outcome of this year's presidential election will influence the U.S. economy for years to
come. Should Hillary Clinton win that election, her outdated policy prescriptions won't return
our economy to the faster growth rates it once enjoyed. And without more economic growth,
her agenda won't result in more jobs or a higher national standard of living. Hillary Clinton's
economic agenda is wrong for America.
The U.S. economy is underperforming. Misguided federal policies have produced one of the
slowest recoveries on record. Since early 2009, the economy has grown at an average annual
rate of 2 percent. It could and should be growing 3 to 4 percent.
Hillary Clinton promises to repeat almost all of Obama's policy mistakes. She wants yet
another massive debt-financed public works program; she wants to raise tax rates on
investment and incomes to nearly 50 percent; she wants to raise the federal minimum wage
to at least $12 an hour and supports state and local efforts to hike theirs; she wants to stall
America's development of fossil fuels; she wants to continue the Obama administration's
regulatory assault on business and entrepreneurship; and she wants to double down on
ObamaCare.
What America needs, and what Americans deserve, is an agenda of economic freedom:
limited but effective government, policies that rely on and strengthen markets, pro-growth
tax reform, sensible federal spending restraint, regulatory relief, sound money, and freedom
to trade. These things are necessary if we are to revive American prosperity.
We are Nobel Laureates in Economics who strongly endorse and support Hillary Clinton's
candidacy for President of the United States.
We have diverse views about many policy issues, such as how big a safety net the
government should provide, how best to promote growth and innovation, and what tax rates
and entitlement spending levels should be. But we have decided to sign this letter jointly to
express our shared judgments that Hillary Clinton is eminently qualified to serve as President,
and Donald Trump is unfit for this office.
Secretary Clinton has a long distinguished record of public service. When she puts forward
serious proposals to invest in infrastructure, education, and innovation, and when she
supports comprehensive immigration reform, she knows what she is talking about. She has
shown that she believes in evidence-based policy-making, and she understands that we need
to strengthen economic growth and to ensure that it produces broad-based prosperity. And
she has the experience and temperament to manage the American economy in times of both
strength and volatility.
By contrast, Donald Trump has no record of public service and offers an incoherent economic
agenda. His reckless threats to start trade wars with several of our largest trading partners,
his plan to deport millions of immigrants, his trillions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts, his
casual suggestion that the United States could threaten default on its debt in order to
renegotiate with our creditors as if Treasuries were a junk bond—each of these proposals
could jeopardize the foundations of American prosperity and the global economy. His other
rash statements about many subjects outside economics have also raised very serious
concerns.
We do not all agree with every one of Secretary Clinton's proposals, but in this election, the
choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is by far the superior presidential candidate for our economy
and our country.
Anti-Trump Camp
StatementsTop Economics Grad Programs Economists

3. NORTH AMERICA
ROUBINI RESEARCH +1 (212) 897 6777 NEW YORK Americas@Roubini.com
YOUR INSIGHT MULTIPLIER +44 (0) 207 207 8800 LONDON Europe@Roubini.com
+65 6236 1600 SINGAPORE Asia@Roubini.com
© 4CAST-RGE LIMITED (company no.: 10179978) 2016 - All Rights Reserved. No duplication or redistribution of this document is permitted without written consent.
3
Page | 3
Contact the authors
Analyst Certification: I, Peter Stevens, certify that the views expressed herein are mine and are clear, fair and not misleading at the time of publication. They have not
been influenced by any relationship, either a personal relationship of mine or a relationship of the firm, to any entity described or referred to herein nor to any client
of RGE nor has any inducement been received in relation to those views.
I further certify that in the preparation and publication of this report I have at all times followed all relevant RGE compliance protocols including those reasonably
seeking to prevent the receipt or misuse of material non-public information.
Disclaimer: 4CAST-RGE LIMITED (company number: 10179978) and all of its affiliates (hereafter, RGE) do not conduct “investment research” as defined in the FCA
Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS) section 12 nor do they provide “advice about securities” as defined in the Regulation of Investment Advisors by the U.S. SEC.
RGE is not regulated by the SEC or by the FCA or by any other regulatory body.
This research report has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and is not subject to
any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research. Nonetheless, RGE has an internal policy that prohibits “front-running” and that is
designed to minimize the risk of receiving or misusing confidential or potentially material non-public information.
The views and conclusions expressed here may bechanged without notice. RGE, its partners and employees make no representation aboutthe completeness or accuracy
of the data, calculations, information or opinions contained in this report. This report may not be copied, redistributed or reproduced in part or whole without RGE’s
express permission.
Information contained in this report or relied upon in its construction may previously have been disclosed under a consulting agreement with one or more clients. The
prices of securities referred to in the report may rise or fall and past performance and forecasts should not be treated as a reliable indicator of future performance or
results. This report is not directed to you if RGE is barred from doing so in your jurisdiction. Nor is it an offer or solicitation to buy or sell securities or to enter into any
investment transaction or use any investment service.