Why Trumponomics won’t make America great again

Posted by: totemphile on 14 May 2017

Why Trumponomics won’t make America great again

The impulsiveness and shallowness of America’s president threaten the economy as well as the rule of law

DONALD TRUMP rules over Washington as if he were a king and the White House his court. His displays of dominance, his need to be the centre of attention and his impetuousness have a whiff of Henry VIII about them. Fortified by his belief that his extraordinary route to power is proof of the collective mediocrity of Congress, the bureaucracy and the media, he attacks any person and any idea standing in his way.

Just how much trouble that can cause was on sensational display this week, with his sacking of James Comey—only the second director of the FBI to have been kicked out. Mr Comey has made mistakes and Mr Trump was within his rights. But the president has succeeded only in drawing attention to questions about his links to Russia and his contempt for the norms designed to hold would-be kings in check.

Just as dangerous, and no less important to ordinary Americans, however, is Mr Trump’s plan for the economy. It treats orthodoxy, accuracy and consistency as if they were simply to be negotiated away in a series of earth-shattering deals. Although Trumponomics could stoke a mini-boom, it, too, poses dangers to America and the world.

Trumponomics 101

In an interview with this newspaper, the president gave his most extensive description yet of what he wants for the economy (see article). His target is to ensure that more Americans have well-paid jobs by raising the growth rate. His advisers talk of 3% GDP growth—a full percentage point higher than what most economists believe is today’s sustainable pace.

In Mr Trump’s mind the most important path to better jobs and faster growth is through fairer trade deals. Though he claims he is a free-trader, provided the rules are fair, his outlook is squarely that of an economic nationalist. Trade is fair when trade flows are balanced. Firms should be rewarded for investing at home and punished for investing abroad.

The second and third strands of Trumponomics, tax cuts and deregulation, will encourage that domestic investment. Lower taxes and fewer rules will fire up entrepreneurs, leading to faster growth and better jobs. This is standard supply-side economics, but to see Trumponomics as a rehash of Republican orthodoxy is a mistake—and not only because its economic nationalism is a departure for a party that has championed free trade.

The real difference is that Trumponomics (unlike, say, Reaganomics) is not an economic doctrine at all. It is best seen as a set of proposals put together by businessmen courtiers for their king. Mr Trump has listened to scores of executives, but there are barely any economists in the White House. His approach to the economy is born of a mindset where deals have winners and losers and where canny negotiators confound abstract principles. Call it boardroom capitalism.

That Trumponomics is a business wishlist helps explain why critics on the left have laid into its poor distributional consequences, fiscal indiscipline and potential cronyism. And it makes clear why businessmen and investors have been enthusiastic, seeing it as a shot in the arm for those who take risks and seek profits. Stockmarkets are close to record highs and indices of business confidence have soared.

In the short term that confidence could prove self-fulfilling. America can bully Canada and Mexico into renegotiating NAFTA. For all their sermons about fiscal prudence, Republicans in Congress are unlikely to deny Mr Trump a tax cut. Stimulus and rule-slashing may lead to faster growth. And with inflation still quiescent, the Federal Reserve might not choke that growth with sharply higher interest rates.

Unleashing pent-up energy would be welcome, but Mr Trump’s agenda comes with two dangers. The economic assumptions implicit in it are internally inconsistent. And they are based on a picture of America’s economy that is decades out of date.

Contrary to the Trump team’s assertions, there is little evidence that either the global trading system or individual trade deals have been systematically biased against America (see article). Instead, America’s trade deficit—Mr Trump’s main gauge of the unfairness of trade deals—is better understood as the gap between how much Americans save and how much they invest (see article). The fine print of trade deals is all but irrelevant. Textbooks predict that Mr Trump’s plans to boost domestic investment will probably lead to larger trade deficits, as it did in the Reagan boom of the 1980s. If so, Mr Trump will either need to abandon his measure of fair trade or, more damagingly, try to curb deficits by using protectionist tariffs that will hurt growth and sow mistrust around the world.

A deeper problem is that Trumponomics draws on a blinkered view of America’s economy. Mr Trump and his advisers are obsessed with the effect of trade on manufacturing jobs, even though manufacturing employs only 8.5% of America’s workers and accounts for only 12% of GDP. Service industries barely seem to register. This blinds Trumponomics to today’s biggest economic worry: the turbulence being created by new technologies. Yet technology, not trade, is ravaging American retailing, an industry that employs more people than manufacturing (see article). And economic nationalism will speed automation: firms unable to outsource jobs to Mexico will stay competitive by investing in machines at home. Productivity and profits may rise, but this may not help the less-skilled factory workers who Mr Trump claims are his priority.

The bite behind the bark

Trumponomics is a poor recipe for long-term prosperity. America will end up more indebted and more unequal. It will neglect the real issues, such as how to retrain hardworking people whose skills are becoming redundant. Worse, when the contradictions become apparent, Mr Trump’s economic nationalism may become fiercer, leading to backlashes in other countries—further stoking anger in America. Even if it produces a short-lived burst of growth, Trumponomics offers no lasting remedy for America’s economic ills. It may yet pave the way for something worse.

Source: http://www.economist.com/news/...en-economy-well-rule 

 

 

Posted on: 16 May 2017 by MangoMonkey

Ideally, as little govt as possible, but not too little. Small enough so it doesn't get in the way and stifle innovation and the private sector. Big enough, so that it provides a level playing field, and optimizes and takes care of the very long term well being of society. 

Isn't a healthy, well rested workforce that isn't worried about where it's next month's rent is coming from better for the private sector?

Isn't a well educated work force, ready to take on the challenges for the next Millennium better for the private sector?

Hasn't govt funded research - Moon shots - pure research - where there was no immediate financial gain - a boon for the private sector?

The govt is not your friend attitude belongs to people who think they've made it on their own. Sure, you probably worked hard, worked really hard, and had talent (let's not talk about the genetic lottery) - but all the breaks you got along the way, the teachers you had that inspired you, the environment that made it all possible, the geographic lottery - let's not for a moment believe you would have achieved the same level of success if you were born to a starving family in subsaharan Africa -- all of the luck you made? Yes you worked hard to achieve what you got - but don't for a moment believe it was all you.

 On the flip side - there's no guarantee that the govt will actually achieve anything - when two or more private parties compete, the market decides which one succeeds. Can't do that with the govt run agencies... 

However, if you're having a heart attack  - you really don't have time to price compare ambulances - and the hospitals they might drop you at... - so that's not really a free market - so usual free market arguments don't apply anyway..

Trump is a disaster waiting to happen - OTOH this might be the shakeup the USA needs - to let the pendulum swing back to where it needs to go. Hillary would have been a different type of disaster. 8 years of mediocrity. This dude is like throwing a spanner in the works..  Just hope the machinery doesn't break so bad it can't be put together again..

Posted on: 16 May 2017 by MangoMonkey
MDS posted:

Skip

If I may, I think this argument is too binary. Yes, there's a legitimate choice to be made between scale and nature of government. But I'd suggest to you that there is a minimum below which a civilised society and a market economy could not properly function.  Government provides services that the private sector can't properly perform like tax collection, the judiciary, foreign relations, etc.  Such functions need to be, and seen to be, impartial. For an economy based on private sector innovation, investment to flourish, that sector needs a competent public sector to provide a level playing field for competition, state infrastructure, regulation etc. Government spending, if wise and efficient, is the private sectors' friend.  Without it the private sector would fail. 

The federalist papers had it right.  I would just like to think that we've advanced enough that we can add more things to the bare minimum we can expect..

With robots doing more and more work, shouldn't we either tax robots, and institute minimum guaranteed wages?

Dire Straits - telegraph road?

Posted on: 20 May 2017 by Kevin Richardson
MangoMonkey posted:

Ideally, as little govt as possible, but not too little. Small enough so it doesn't get in the way and stifle innovation and the private sector. Big enough, so that it provides a level playing field, and optimizes and takes care of the very long term well being of society. 

Isn't a healthy, well rested workforce that isn't worried about where it's next month's rent is coming from better for the private sector?

Isn't a well educated work force, ready to take on the challenges for the next Millennium better for the private sector?

Hasn't govt funded research - Moon shots - pure research - where there was no immediate financial gain - a boon for the private sector?

The govt is not your friend attitude belongs to people who think they've made it on their own. Sure, you probably worked hard, worked really hard, and had talent (let's not talk about the genetic lottery) - but all the breaks you got along the way, the teachers you had that inspired you, the environment that made it all possible, the geographic lottery - let's not for a moment believe you would have achieved the same level of success if you were born to a starving family in subsaharan Africa -- all of the luck you made? Yes you worked hard to achieve what you got - but don't for a moment believe it was all you.

 On the flip side - there's no guarantee that the govt will actually achieve anything - when two or more private parties compete, the market decides which one succeeds. Can't do that with the govt run agencies... 

However, if you're having a heart attack  - you really don't have time to price compare ambulances - and the hospitals they might drop you at... - so that's not really a free market - so usual free market arguments don't apply anyway..

Trump is a disaster waiting to happen - OTOH this might be the shakeup the USA needs - to let the pendulum swing back to where it needs to go. Hillary would have been a different type of disaster. 8 years of mediocrity. This dude is like throwing a spanner in the works..  Just hope the machinery doesn't break so bad it can't be put together again..

I don't think Clinton would have been 8 years of mediocrity. The single greatest legislative achievement of my life was ACA. Clinton clearly would have worked towards improving ACA. Trump obviously doesn't give AF about healthcare / insurance for most Americans. Healthcare will ultimately destroy our economy and standards of living if the GOP "plan" is implemented. ACA has flaws but those should be addressed. Trump just wants to destroy anything related to Obama just out of spite.

I spent years as a small business owner unable to get health insurance on the "individual market." Fortunately, I am affluent to the point I could pay for most ordinary medical treatments. If I got cancer? That could cost millions and I'd likely lose everything.

I really don't want to go back to the pre ACA days. I'd likely be forced into working a job just for health insurance. That is far worse than "wage slavery."

Posted on: 20 May 2017 by MangoMonkey

@Kevin - I feel your pain. I'm just hoping the pendulum swings back hard enough that we get single payer in the USA. That would not have been possible if Hillary had been president...

Posted on: 23 May 2017 by MangoMonkey

[@mention:30428924477710615] -

there was something in the news recently about how Putin disrupted movements against him that were being formed on social media by planting his own people in those forums - in enough numbers to nullify any solidarity.

I was on the breitbart website yesterday. Their spin on the news and the comments section is something to behold. I do wonder (and am more confident the more I think of it) that part of the Russian manipulation of the election would be the comments section - to egg people on, feed them lies, push them over the edge..

otoh / maybe that would be not a great use of resources - it's the swing voters that need influencing - not the breitbart followers.

still, some of the things that I read their were very odd - like these were ideas being planted in people's heads - and the echo chambers do the rest.

Posted on: 24 May 2017 by winkyincanada

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40023720

This is a classic. The much-ridiculed Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto tried the same thing a few years back as part of his electioneering. Arithmetically added tax cuts to spending cuts and called the total "savings"; which he then used as evidence of fiscal responsibility.