Posted on 02/25/2017 7:01:51 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Virtually the whole world is beating up on the Trump administration for daring to predict that low marginal tax rates, regulatory rollbacks, and the repeal of Obamacare will generate 3 to 3.5 percent economic growth in the years ahead.
In a CNBC interview last week, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin held the line on this forecast. He also argued the need for dynamic budget scoring to capture the effects of faster growth. Good for him.
But whats so interesting about all the economic-growth naysaying today is that President Obamas first budget forecast roughly eight years ago was much rosier than Trumps. And there was nary a peep of criticism from the mainstream-media outlets and the consensus of economists.
Strategas Research Partners policy analyst Dan Clifton printed up a chart of the Obama plan that predicted real economic growth of roughly 3 percent in 2010, near 4 percent in 2011, over 4 percent in 2012, and nearly 4 percent in 2013.
But it turned out that actual growth ran below 2 percent during this period. Was there any howling about this result among the economic consensus? Of course not. It seems theyve saved all their grumbling for the Trump forecast today.
And whats really interesting is that the Obama policy didnt include a single economic-growth incentive. Not one. Instead, there was a massive $850 billion so-called spending stimulus (Whatever became of those spending multipliers?), a bunch of public-works programs that never got off the ground, and finally Obamacare, which really was one giant tax increase.
Remember when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the health-care mandate was in fact a tax? But it wasnt just a tax. It was a tax hike. And added to that were an 3.8 percent investment tax hike, a proposed tax hike on so-called Cadillac insurance plans, and yet another tax increase on medical equipment.
So eight years ago tax-and-spend was perfectly okay. And the projection that it would produce a 4 percent growth rate perfectly satisfied the economic consensus.
Make sense? No, it does not.
So heres President Trump reaching back through history for a common-sense growth policy that worked in the 1960s, when JFK slashed marginal tax rates on individuals and corporations, and again in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates across-the-board and sparked a two-decade boom of roughly 4 percent real annual growth.
But the economic consensus wont buy Trumps plan.
One after another, Trump critics argue that because weve had 2 percent growth over the past ten years or so, we are doomed to continue that forever. This is nonsense.
Most of the Trump critics point to the decline in productivity over the past 15 years. They say, unless productivity jumps to 2.5 percent or so, and unless labor-force participation rises, we cant possibly have 3 to 4 percent growth.
So I invite your attention to the below chart from Stanford University economics professor John Taylor, whos also a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Taylor, one of the nations top academic economists, shows that productivity declines can be followed by productivity increases, which unfortunately can be followed again by productivity declines. Look at the chart:
In his widely read blog, Economics One, Taylor writes, Take off the muzzle and the economy will roar. He notes that bad economic policy leads to slumping productivity, living standards, real wages, and growth.
Huge swings in productivity growth in recent years, Taylor writes, are closely related to shifts in economic policy, and economic theory indicates that the relationship is causal.
He concludes, To turn the economy around we need to take the muzzle off, and that means regulatory reform, tax reform, budget reform, and monetary reform.
Well, arent those exactly the reforms that President Trump is promoting?
Get rid of the state-sponsored barriers to growth. Then watch how these common-sense incentive-minded policies turn rosy scenario into economic reality.
Larry Kudlow is CNBCs senior contributor. His new book is JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity, written with Brian Domitrovic.
NATIONAL REVIEW SUCKS
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Trump is so pro-business, and we likely will see increased growth (heck, just in my own little sphere I am much more optimistic about my startup).
I’m just skeptical at this point that we can pull out of our current economic situation without a) a major correction, or b) blowing another huge asset bubble, leading to an even bigger correction.
Pension solvency still requires an 8% return right? When’s that mess going to get solved?
RE: NATIONAL REVIEW SUCKS
What is it about this article you disagree with?
Bingo! The issue is demographic. It resolves when the Baby Boomers are dead, or at lease when we pass over the top of the curve.
I dated her in high school. Nice Italian girl.
RE: I dated her in high school. Nice Italian girl.
LOL, hey let’s have a picture...
Gonna be some rough going for us Gen Xers and also Millenials to keep the retiring Boomers fed, housed, medicated, and operated on when need be.
Even if we have the Christian compassion to do it--the financial reality is what it is. We're not going to be able to keep our parents in a luxury retirement home or whatever with the full battery of pills and expensive treatments to the bitter end.
Lord help us, we'll just do the best we can.
Just look at your palm. Related:
Trump To Order Reversal Of Obama Water Regulation Rule: Official
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3528964/posts?page=7
This alone will send construction into a boom.
Remember, Vice-President Mike Pence supported the very radical FairTax income tax replacement; the possibility of something like a no-loophole flat-rate income tax in the 17 to 18 percent range (after a generous initial earned income exemption to protect low income taxpayers) may not be far-fetched.
Imagine bank account interest, capital gains and stock dividend payments no longer taxed, and a corporate income tax rate possibly as low as 12 percent! That would ignite an economic boom that could make the 1980's seem like a minor event in comparison.
It's a monster problem. Boomer wealth can't earn a return AND be spent on care. The only way out is through. Carefully.
Also, they seem to ignore that this was just another smoke-and-mirrors lie from Obozo. The fact that labor force participation rates fell during his reign (yes, that what he thinks it was) is concrete evidence that his policies failed so miserably that workers just gave up looking for a job (i.e., Discouraged Worker Hypothesis).
MAGA
We may still be in for a correction and if so, it will be necessary. If President Trump’s policies don’t prevent it, they will likely mitigate the suffering compared to what we were headed for....
They are correct not to over-promise. I think growth will be 4+%. Especially after being bottled up for 8+ years.
Pension solvency can NEVER be solved when the harvest begins when the retirees are 50ish. Solvency requires savings rates of at least 25% of gross income, 6% rates of return, retirement not earlier than about 60ish and death by 85 or so.
Other than this you can forget about the old and obsolete 4% “rule”. It is really more like the 2.7% rule or less. Even that is hopeful anything more is just foolish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.