Trumponomics: It’s Not All Crazy
Educate! Donald Trump, Economics
By Dean Baker, www.counterpunch.org
November 18th, 2016
Powered by Translate
3Share
Print Friendly
Above Photo: by Ninian Reid | CC BY 2.0
Note: Dean Baker looks for the silver lining in Donald Trump’s economic
plans. We’re pleased to see taxes decline among working people but decry
tax cuts for the wealthy. We urge a very different direction than Trump.
Trump’s proposals will expand the wealth divide, which is a key cause of
many of the problems faced in the United States. We urge more tax brackets
and a much more progressive tax system. Why should someone earning one
million, ten million or a hundred million dollars each year be taxed at the
same rate as someone earning $500,000 annually? For the very high tax
brackets a tax rate of 85% or so would be appropriate.
Spending on infrastructure is an urgent need. But, the details matter. Yes,
infrastructure spending will create jobs but will it be designed as a public
good or a gift for private benefit of corporations? Will it be designed to
move the US off of carbon and nuclear energy to clean, sustainable energy?
As far as paying for it, we look for the day when the government takes back
its constitutional power to create money and does not go into debt to pay
for necessary projects. We can create our own money which would be debt
free. Why do we go into debt by paying banks to do something we could do for
ourselves?
Finally, Trump populism during the campaign does not seem to include
economic populism in his government. According to Politico “Trump is
considering Former Goldman Sachs banker Steven Mnuchin has been seen at
Trump Tower amid rumors that he’s the leading candidate for Treasury
secretary. Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross appears headed to the Commerce
Department. Steve Bannon, another Goldman alum, will work steps from the
Oval Office. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon remains a possibility as
Treasury secretary and will serve as an outside adviser if he doesn’t get
the job.” We will see who he ends up picking but it sounds like a
continuation of Wall Street ruling the US economy for the benefits of the
oligarchs and not the people.
KZ
Trump’s Infrastructure Spending and Tax Cuts for Working People Make Sense
It looks like we will have to get used to the idea of Donald Trump being
president for the next four years. In his campaign he pushed many outlandish
proposals, like banning Muslim immigrants and deporting 11 million
immigrants without documentation. We will have to do whatever we can to
block such flagrantly inhumane measures.
There are many other items on his campaign agenda and that of the Republican
leadership that will have to be resisted, but at least one part of his
agenda could actually offer real gains. Trump has proposed large
infrastructure spending and also tax cuts that will hugely increase the
deficit. Both offer real benefits, although with substantial risks.
The infrastructure story is straightforward. Roads and bridges in many parts
of the country are badly in need of repair. This is both an economic waste,
as people needlessly get caught in traffic, and a health hazard when bad
roads increase the risk of accidents. Ideally, infrastructure spending would
also go to repair schools and improve water systems so that we don’t have
more Flints with people drinking lead in their water. It would be great if
some of this funding also went to mass transit and clean energy to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, but that might be expecting too much from a Trump
administration.
The infrastructure spending would also create jobs. Public construction has
traditionally been a source of relatively good paying jobs for men without
college degrees. In recent years, the construction workforce has been
disproportionately Hispanic. Spending in this area benefits a segment of the
labor market that badly needs help. Of course the benefits are considerably
less if projects are privatized, as Trump has suggested, and this will have
to be part of the battle.
The other useful part of Trump’s agenda is that he clearly does not care
about budget deficits. His tax cuts could add more than $400 billion, more
than 2.0 percent of GDP, to the annual deficit. These tax cuts are not a
good use of money. They will overwhelmingly go to the rich who have been the
main beneficiaries of economic growth over the last four decades.
In addition to not needing the money, if the point is to boost demand,
giving tax breaks to the rich is the worst way to do it. If a poor or middle
class person gets $1,000 from the government they are likely to spend most
or all of it. But if we give another $1,000 or even $1,000,000 to Bill Gates
it is unlikely to affect his consumption at all.
Even though the bulk of the Trump’s proposed tax cuts do go to the rich,
there are still substantial cuts for the middle class, which will provide a
real boost to consumption. This boost to consumption, along with the
increased demand from his infrastructure spending, will mean a large
increase in demand in the economy. The result will be more jobs and a
reduction in unemployment.
The strengthening of the labor market will also leave workers better
situated to get pay increases. The only time in the last four decades when
workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution saw sustained
gains in real wages was the tight labor market of the late 1990s.
The irony in this story is that it might take a Republican president to give
us a tight enough labor market for workers to get their share of the
benefits of growth. This is partly due to Democrats having come to idealize
the virtues of balanced budgets. Many have wrongly concluded that the
prosperity of the 1990s was due to the budget surpluses of the time, which
were in fact the outcome rather than the cause of strong growth. In her
campaign, Clinton repeatedly promised that her spending plans would not
increase the deficit.
However the bigger obstacle to larger deficits under a Democratic president
is the Republican Congress. The Republicans routinely screamed bloody murder
over any effort by President Obama to stimulate the economy with larger
deficits. Several times they have balked at raising the debt ceiling,
arguing that this routine maintenance measure was somehow a threat to our
children’s well-being. In fact, the burden posed by servicing the debt, at
0.8 percent of GDP, is near a post-war low.
But Congressional Republicans will no longer care about deficits with
President Trump in the White House. This means that he will be able to run
deficits large enough to get the economy to full employment and quite
possibly beyond.
We may once again see issues with inflation and a need for higher interest
rates to slow the economy. That will have some negative effects, but at
least it will put an end to the long period of high unemployment and secular
stagnation. This will be a good thing; it’s just unfortunate that we needed
a Trump administration to get there.
3Share
← Health Reform In Trump Era: Big Step Back, Possibilities For Bigger Steps
Forward
Violent Anti-Obama Protests Break Out In Athens →
Resist!
Create!
Educate!
Organize!
Strategize!
Newsletter Sign-up
Top of Form
Email:
First Name: Last Name:
html text
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Associated Projects
Upcoming Events
Future Of Left And Independent Politics Network
March 3 to 5, 2017
Chicago, IL - We are now organizing a second national...
The People's Convention
July 23, 2016
Philadelphia, PA - In July, TPR will convene The People’s Convention in...
Protest RIMPAC 2016
July 6 to 27, 2016
Hawaii - RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific), the world's...
Petitions & Online Actions
Open Letter: We Refuse To Be Enemies
Stop The Bayer-Monsanto Merger
Women’s Boat To Gaza Intercepted: Participants Siezed
State Refuses To Do Safety Study For Gas Plant
Browse Articles by Issue
#BlackLivesMatter (383) 2016 Elections (83) Activism (145) Activists (63)
Afghanistan (65) Agriculture (244) Art (73) Arts (102) Austerity (203)
Baltimore (130) Barack Obama (136) BDS (75) Black Lives Matter (95) Brazil
(154) California (146) Canada (339) Capitalism (303) Chelsea Manning (189)
Chicago (141) China (133) CIA (137) Civil Disobedience (81) Civil Rights
(125) Climate Change (1057) Climate Justice (63) Coal (120) Community (66)
Congress (139) Cooperatives (90) Corporations (76) Corporatism (593)
Corruption (188) Criminal Justice (150) Criminal Justice and Prisons (564)
Debt (79) Democracy (707) Detroit (85) Donald Trump (86) Drones (248)
Education (659) Edward Snowden (299) Egypt (159) Elections (185) Energy
(1075) Environment (1985) Europe (168) fast track (97) FBI (97) FCC (149)
FERC (108) Ferguson (318) Finance and the Economy (811) First Nations (109)
Food (223) Food and Water (289) Fossil Fuels (96) Fracking (616) France (88)
Freedom of Speech and Assembly (319) Free Trade (101) Fukushima (63) Gas
(73) Gaza (118) Germany (81) GMOs (145) Government (395) Greece (141)
Guantanamo Bay (142) health (196) Health Care (278) Higher Education (71)
Hillary Clinton (68) History (229) Homelessness (84) Housing (211) Human
Rights (761) Immigration (206) Imperialism (118) Indigenous Peoples (125)
Indigenous Rights (438) Inequality (175) Internet (162) Internet Freedom
(167) Iran (69) Iraq (125) ISIS (78) Israel (504) Japan (77) Journalism
(163) Julian Assange (61) killed by police (111) Labor (203) Labor Unions
(95) Land Rights (106) Latin America (94) Law (684) LGBTQ (69) Living Wage
(86) Marijuana (86) Mass Incarceration (159) Media (436) Mexico (112)
Minimum Wage (103) Mining (122) Monsanto (135) Neoliberalism (61) Net
Neutrality (223) New York (106) New York City (93) Nonviolence (98) NSA
(576) Nuclear Energy (130) Nuclear Weapons (86) NYPD (89) Obama (96) Occupy
(357) Oil (113) Oil & Gas (311) Oil and Gas (207) Organizing (92) Palestine
(471) Peace (200) Pipeline (100) Pipelines (256) Police (265) Police abuse
(538) police brutality (856) Police the Police (94) Police violence (94)
Political Prisoner (79) Politics (198) pollution (81) Poverty (261) Prison
(86) Privacy (216) Privatization (118) Protest (480) Protests (469) Racial
Justice (321) Racism (639) Revolution (154) Russia (143) Social Change (229)
Social Movements (76) Solidarity (142) Spain (85) Strikes (64) Student
Activism (314) Student Protests (80) Surveillance (587) Syria (296) Tar
Sands (264) Terrorism (82) Torture (195) TPP (636) Trade (108)
Transportation (71) TTIP (112) Turkey (119) Ukraine (121) Unions (98) United
Kingdom (77) United Nations (79) United States (156) usa (90) Venezuela
(132) Video (285) Violence (120) Walmart (66) War (97) Wars and Militarism
(1585) Water (260) wealth inequality (70) Whistleblowers (69) Whistleblowing
(111) Wikileaks (87) Women's Rights (108) Worker Rights and Jobs (766)
Workers Rights and Jobs (130) Youth (142)
Copyright (c) 2016 PopularResistance.Org - All Rights
Reserved
ABOUT | CONTACT | DONATE
http://www.popularresistance.org/feed/http://www.popularresistance.org/feed/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-Machine-Create-a-New-World/1282351205
88487http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-Machine-Create-a-New-World/12823
5120588487https://twitter.com/popresistancehttps://twitter.com/popresistance
Home About Contact Donate
http://www.popularresistance.org/how-to-use-this-site/http://www.popularresi
stance.org/how-to-use-this-site/
CALENDAR
NEWSLETTER
CORE ISSUES
RESISTANCE
REPORT
DAILY EMAIL
DIGEST
https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/7315/donate_page/nowhttps://org2.salsalabs.com/
o/7315/donate_page/now
Trumponomics: It’s Not All Crazy
Educate! Donald Trump, Economics
By Dean Baker, www.counterpunch.org
November 18th, 2016
Powered by https://translate.google.com/Translate
’Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Above Photo: by Ninian Reid | CC BY 2.0
Note: Dean Baker looks for the silver lining in Donald Trump’s economic
plans. We’re pleased to see taxes decline among working people but decry
tax cuts for the wealthy. We urge a very different direction than Trump.
Trump’s proposals will expand the wealth divide, which is a key cause of
many of the problems faced in the United States. We urge more tax brackets
and a much more progressive tax system. Why should someone earning one
million, ten million or a hundred million dollars each year be taxed at the
same rate as someone earning $500,000 annually? For the very high tax
brackets a tax rate of 85% or so would be appropriate.
Spending on infrastructure is an urgent need. But, the details matter. Yes,
infrastructure spending will create jobs but will it be designed as a public
good or a gift for private benefit of corporations? Will it be designed to
move the US off of carbon and nuclear energy to clean, sustainable energy?
As far as paying for it, we look for the day when the government takes back
its constitutional power to create money and does not go into debt to pay
for necessary projects. We can create our own money which would be debt
free. Why do we go into debt by paying banks to do something we could do for
ourselves?
Finally, Trump populism during the campaign does not seem to include
economic populism in his government. According to Politico “Trump is
considering Former Goldman Sachs banker Steven Mnuchin has been seen at
Trump Tower amid rumors that he’s the leading candidate for Treasury
secretary. Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross appears headed to the Commerce
Department. Steve Bannon, another Goldman alum, will work steps from the
Oval Office. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon remains a possibility as
Treasury secretary and will serve as an outside adviser if he doesn’t get
the job.” We will see who he ends up picking but it sounds like a
continuation of Wall Street ruling the US economy for the benefits of the
oligarchs and not the people.
KZ
Trump’s Infrastructure Spending and Tax Cuts for Working People Make Sense
It looks like we will have to get used to the idea of Donald Trump being
president for the next four years. In his campaign he pushed many outlandish
proposals, like banning Muslim immigrants and deporting 11 million
immigrants without documentation. We will have to do whatever we can to
block such flagrantly inhumane measures.
There are many other items on his campaign agenda and that of the Republican
leadership that will have to be resisted, but at least one part of his
agenda could actually offer real gains. Trump has proposed large
infrastructure spending and also tax cuts that will hugely increase the
deficit. Both offer real benefits, although with substantial risks.
The infrastructure story is straightforward. Roads and bridges in many parts
of the country are badly in need of repair. This is both an economic waste,
as people needlessly get caught in traffic, and a health hazard when bad
roads increase the risk of accidents. Ideally, infrastructure spending would
also go to repair schools and improve water systems so that we don’t have
more Flints with people drinking lead in their water. It would be great if
some of this funding also went to mass transit and clean energy to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, but that might be expecting too much from a Trump
administration.
The infrastructure spending would also create jobs. Public construction has
traditionally been a source of relatively good paying jobs for men without
college degrees. In recent years, the construction workforce has been
disproportionately Hispanic. Spending in this area benefits a segment of the
labor market that badly needs help. Of course the benefits are considerably
less if projects are privatized, as Trump has suggested, and this will have
to be part of the battle.
The other useful part of Trump’s agenda is that he clearly does not care
about budget deficits. His tax cuts could add more than $400 billion, more
than 2.0 percent of GDP, to the annual deficit. These tax cuts are not a
good use of money. They will overwhelmingly go to the rich who have been the
main beneficiaries of economic growth over the last four decades.
In addition to not needing the money, if the point is to boost demand,
giving tax breaks to the rich is the worst way to do it. If a poor or middle
class person gets $1,000 from the government they are likely to spend most
or all of it. But if we give another $1,000 or even $1,000,000 to Bill Gates
it is unlikely to affect his consumption at all.
Even though the bulk of the Trump’s proposed tax cuts do go to the rich,
there are still substantial cuts for the middle class, which will provide a
real boost to consumption. This boost to consumption, along with the
increased demand from his infrastructure spending, will mean a large
increase in demand in the economy. The result will be more jobs and a
reduction in unemployment.
The strengthening of the labor market will also leave workers better
situated to get pay increases. The only time in the last four decades when
workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution saw sustained
gains in real wages was the tight labor market of the late 1990s.
The irony in this story is that it might take a Republican president to give
us a tight enough labor market for workers to get their share of the
benefits of growth. This is partly due to Democrats having come to idealize
the virtues of balanced budgets. Many have wrongly concluded that the
prosperity of the 1990s was due to the budget surpluses of the time, which
were in fact the outcome rather than the cause of strong growth. In her
campaign, Clinton repeatedly promised that her spending plans would not
increase the deficit.
However the bigger obstacle to larger deficits under a Democratic president
is the Republican Congress. The Republicans routinely screamed bloody murder
over any effort by President Obama to stimulate the economy with larger
deficits. Several times they have balked at raising the debt ceiling,
arguing that this routine maintenance measure was somehow a threat to our
children’s well-being. In fact, the burden posed by servicing the debt, at
0.8 percent of GDP, is near a post-war low.
But Congressional Republicans will no longer care about deficits with
President Trump in the White House. This means that he will be able to run
deficits large enough to get the economy to full employment and quite
possibly beyond.
We may once again see issues with inflation and a need for higher interest
rates to slow the economy. That will have some negative effects, but at
least it will put an end to the long period of high unemployment and secular
stagnation. This will be a good thing; it’s just unfortunate that we needed
a Trump administration to get there.
