The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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.
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 gmoke - Nov 7
by gmoke - Nov 6
by gmoke - Oct 27
by Oui - Nov 8
by Oui - Nov 64 comments
by Oui - Nov 52 comments
by Oui - Nov 4
by Oui - Nov 24 comments
by Oui - Nov 2
by Oui - Nov 14 comments
by Oui - Oct 31
by Oui - Oct 301 comment
by Oui - Oct 2912 comments
by Oui - Oct 28
by Oui - Oct 2711 comments
by Oui - Oct 26
by Oui - Oct 25
by Oui - Oct 24