Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Two Differences Between a Clinton Administration and a Trump Administration...
The Trump administration sold its 2017 tax-cut reconciliation bill as a plan to boost American growth and American incomes by reducing, corporate taxes, transferring $2 trillion--equivalent to 10%-points of a year's GDP--of wealth to the upper class, thus increase incentives to save, and boost the flow of funds into private investment in one year. In the year after the tax cut was passed the program was projected to boost investment relative to baseline by 4%-points of national product and so boost the rate of potential output growth and thus of American incomes relative to baseline by 0.4%-points per year not by demand-side stimulus boosting spending and reducing unemployment but by supply-side stimulus boosting investment in America and America's capital stock. The program was supposed to make the U.S. 1% richer after 5 years; 3% richer after 10 years; 5% richer after 15 years, and so on.


by generic on Wed Dec 26th, 2018 at 07:58:17 PM EST
Posted the wrong part, sorry:

Two Differences Between a Clinton Administration and a Trump Administration...

By raising taxes and by cutting government spending relative to the then-projected baseline--half of the cuts coming from the military, half of the cuts coming from the social insurance programs--Clinton sought to redirect 1%-point of GDP's worth of funds each year for five consecutive years from funding the government debt to funding productive private investment.

Over the five years as the program was being phased in, this boost in investment was projected by the administration--i.e., by me and others--to be a supply-side economic stimulus raising the rate of growth of potential output and boosting the rate of economic growth and thus of American incomes by 0.2%-points per year. Thereafter, once it was fully phased in, the program was projected by the administration--i.e., by me and others--to boost investment relative to the baseline by 4%-points of national product and so boost the rate of potential output growth and thus of American incomes relative to bas3eline by 0.4%-points per year. The program was supposed to make the U.S. 1% richer after 5 years; 3% richer after 10 years; 5% richer after 15 years, and so on.

It worked. Investment grew. Growth accelerated. Income rose relative to the baseline.

by generic on Wed Dec 26th, 2018 at 08:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series