No, he is worse from an economic standpoint because he's an unapologetic capitalist, and unregulated capitalism, to be blunt, will never exist again. It simply can't, it doesn't give the working class enough.
Telling the people "You can govern yourselves, we don't need your tax money!" is very flattering, but people tend to want to do a lot of things where the collective have to be involved for most to get in on it (i.e.: survive cancer without overwhelming debt).
Why don't you tell that to the bank clerks, and engineers that were around during the Gilded Age.
Why don't you try arguing your position with some one familiar with economics.
Your position is flawed, illogical and STUPID.
Yes, Stupid, because even now, under this idiotic SOCIALIST FASCIST system that the United States is stuck with the Rich are still Rich, and the poor (while not impoverished) are still Poor.
Clearly then the SOCIALIST, or PROGRESSIVE AGENDA HAS FAILED.
More than that, it deserves to be labeled as a failure of epic proportions that has drastically slowed down the economy.
From 1800 - 1912 The economy increased in size 97 FOLD, since then it has only increased 17x when adjusted for inflation.
Inflation that is required by the IDIOTIC PROGRESSIVE AGENDA that wants government to pay more out to those that are too lazy to get off their asses and get ahead.
Minimum wage laws are one thing (though even those would not be necessary if government would get out of the way.)
During that first time period (1800 - 1912) the actual deflation that took place (increase in true value of the dollar) was -16%, that is the dollar was worth 16% more than what it was in 1800.
From 1913 - 2007 we have seen the dollar decrease in value over 2200%, reducing it to mere pennies on the dollar.
Luckily for us, deflation is a natural progression of things, as industry gets more efficient, otherwise we'd all have been INFLATED INTO POVERTY BY THE 1980s.
