In economics, an externality is an indirect effect on parties not involved on a transaction. With the extraction of resources for energy production, the externalities we run into are negative–companies involved in transactions are mainly concerned with the immediate economic cost of production and its potential for profit as opposed to the hidden costs of resource extraction as pollution harms the health of people nearby.

Another negative externality would be federal regulations costing $2 trillion, if it was not a widely debunked fabrication featuring hugely inflated numbers influenced by conservative donor’s political agendas, as opposed to reality.

Donald Trump’s energy infrastructure plans may, after all the regulations are removed, yield tens of billions of dollars for taxpayers and private companies, but what would the indirect costs be? In the same way that Trump asserts there are hidden costs to federal regulations, what are the hidden costs of no regulation?

In 2011, a group of researchers from around the country attempted to calculate that number. They examined the full cost of coal’s “lifecycle” in the United States—that is, the costs of everything that mining coal, transporting it, burning it for electricity, and disposing it does to the world … The United States’ dependence on coal cost the public “a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually,” they wrote … “If we were to go back to do what we did in this paper,” said Jonathan Buonocore, a research fellow at Harvard who worked on the study, “the numbers could go up.”

It’s also important to note that the costs and profits are not evenly distributed. While the profits are concentrated within pockets of coal companies, and the benefits are experienced as relatively cheap electricity across the country, the costs are experienced mainly by regions where the most coal extraction goes on (the Great Plains, the Midwest, and the Appalachian).

West Virgina is probably the most illustrative example of the concentration of costs in specific regions, having experienced a total collapse of living conditions thanks to the coal industry’s machinations. It’s not limited to West Virgina though and speaks to the fact that entire towns, states, and regions are turning into the the ultimate manifestations of negative externalities as public health declines, job prospects dry up, environmental degradation accelerates, and public safety nosedives.

The defining issues of our time are the threat of ecological catastrophe and unprecedented income inequality, so it is fitting for a “modern regulatory framework” to be crafted by billionaire Carl Icahn who, like all billionaires and corporate entities, can be trusted to self-regulate.

“Icahn has billions in stock holdings … he will also be in charge of overseeing regulatory overhauls while simultaneously controlling or owning stock in companies that could benefit from the changes he makes…It looks like Trump isn’t the only billionaire set to profit off of the presidency.”

In order to achieve this new framework, a few things have to go:
Dodd-Frank regulations which addressed–but did not solve–the numerous problems within the financial services industry that nearly led to a depression.
Environmental and health regulations protecting public health and consumer safety
Environmental regulations protecting clean water
Regulations protecting cyber security and privacy

One of the President’s proposals for lowering rates for every American was to change how childcare was taxed. If his childcare tax plan was any indicator, however, his simplified tax code won’t actually provide benefits to every tax bracket.

Trump’s child care plan was one of his most detailed proposals (see: his Fact Sheet and Full Report) so it leaves us with a lot to examine.

His plan actually provides tax cuts at every income level but not for every household. The majority of Trump’s tax cuts are for the highest-income households, with 47% of all savings going to the wealthiest 1% of households. The relative tax burden of working and middle-class households *would actually increase

It conservatively estimates that Trump’s plan would increase taxes for about 8.7 million families. About 20 percent of households and more than half of single parents would pay more in taxes. Roughly 26 million individuals reside in these families facing a tax increase, including 11 million adults and 15 million children.

There are three major tax policy changes Trump has proposed which are at the center of this tax hike on working and middle class families. First, his tax-deductible childcare costs stop after your child turns 13. Keep in mind that it is a deduction, meaning it is only available to households that make enough to owe the government taxes, excluding 40 percent of Americans who make too little to pay taxes. Second, personal and dependent exemptions are entirely eliminated, coming down hardest on households with more than two children. Third, head of the household filing status is removed from tax code, increasing the burden on single payer families.

This childcare plan is, unsurprisingly, only another part of a larger policy central to the Trump administration–flagrant disregard for the livelihoods of Americans outside the wealthiest households.

Under Trump, defense discretionary spending would go up beyond current projections. Defense spending for FY 2016 is estimated to be shy of $600 billion. By FY 2026, it was projected to reach $719 billion.

While there are little to no concrete numbers from Trump’s administration, it is estimated that his plan will cost upwards an additional $500 billion (tending towards $800 to $900 billion). This would push FY 2026 defense discretionary spending to around $1.5 trillion.

For reference, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan spent $567 billion together. Including the United States, the world spent $1.6 trillion on military expenditures.

David Sanger, the NYT reporter that gave Trump the idea to call his position “America First”, summarized it in an interview with the President as

mistrust of many foreigners, both our adversaries and some of our allies, a sense that they’ve been freeloading off of us for many years.

But how does this translate to trade policy?

At its most basic, “America First” requires viewing the global economy as a zero-sum game where you can only gain at another’s expense. So, to ensure American prosperity, we must make moves to start gaining again at the expense of others (e.g. Stephen Bannon’s “economic nationalism”). Whether it be tearing up 14 trade agreements with 20 countries, imposing antiquated protectionist policies, or risking a trade war with China, America and its own economic welfare must be put before that of every other nation.

There’s a very vibrant thread of nationalism within the America First trade policy (and globally), but it’s really founded on opposition to globalization as experienced within America’s “sacrifice zones”–invisible communities both political parties have agreed to plunder on behalf of their corporate sponsors.

Trump is right here in arguing that workers have been exploited, but even a broken clock is right twice. We should try to get a hint of what he’s grasping and what’s going on below the surface. The key feature here is its “anti-globalization” but really Trump has tapped into hostility towards the corporate form of globalization, while standing ready to attack real globalization.

Corporate globalization is something we are all familiar with. It is defined by policies allowing transnationals to “play one immobile national labor force against another,” the prime example being NAFTA undermining workers in both the United States and Mexico. At home, as labor grows increasingly immobile and capital grows mobile, it becomes “easy to shift production to low-wage, high repression areas of the world with low environmental standards.”

While Trump’s trade policy isn’t apocalyptic, isn’t premised on facts. This is the common message whether you read analyses of the economics behind his trade policy or the dealmaking needed to follow through: facts need not apply to my vision.

And this is a problem for reasons that go beyond the litany of data describing what happens next. Mistakes made by forces as powerful as the United States have real consequences, violent consequences for people outside the Forbidden Palaces.

There’s really no debating the two following facts. First, the Obama administration averted an economic meltdown that may have rivaled the Great Depression. Second, we’re witnessing the weakest of all prior post-World War II recoveries.

Whether you measure GDP growth, employment, or wage growth, the recovery has been muted and uneven for most Americans.

Part of the reason why GDP and wage growth have been so lethargic is related to how income inequality hampers economic growth. In the United States, income inequality has progressed to the point that the top 1 percent of Americans hoard 85 percent of the post-recession income gains, helping curtail economic growth. Donald Trump promises to provide “change” that will spur massive economic growth for all Americans–meaning wage growth, full-employment, and GDP growth. But if his early days are indication, he’ll let elites further raid our treasury and amplify the already historic levels of inequality that are slackening the economic growth he promises to restore.