stiglitz267_BRYAN R. SMITHAFP via Getty Images_trumpstockmarket

Economics

A verdade sobre a economia de Trump

Jan 17, 2020 Joseph E. Stiglitz

NOVA IORQUE – À medida que as elites empresariais do mundo viajam para Davos para a sua reunião anual, as pessoas deveriam fazer uma pergunta simples: será que superaram a sua paixão pelo presidente dos EUA, Donald Trump?

Há dois anos, muitos poucos líderes empresariais estavam preocupados com as alterações climáticas ou chateados com a misoginia e intolerância de Trump. A maioria, no entanto, estava a comemorar os cortes do presidente nos impostos a bilionários e corporações e aguardava ansiosamente os seus esforços para desregular a economia. Isso permitiria que as empresas poluíssem mais o ar, atraíssem mais americanos para os opiáceos, incentivassem mais crianças a comer alimentos indutores de diabetes e se envolvessem no tipo de manobras ardilosas financeiras que provocaram a crise de 2008.

Hoje, muitos chefes empresariais ainda falam sobre o crescimento contínuo do PIB e os preços históricos das ações. Mas nem o PIB nem o índice Dow Jones são bons avaliadores do desempenho económico. Nenhum diz nada sobre o que está a acontecer com o padrão de vida dos cidadãos comuns, nem nada sobre a sustentabilidade. De facto, o desempenho económico dos EUA nos últimos quatro anos é a Prova A da acusação para não confiar nesses indicadores.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Joseph E. Stiglitz

Writing for PS since 2001
316 Commentaries

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 96 Comments on this article

luciano trani Feb 12, 2020

unfortunately, there is good evidence that re-election is related to GDP and Dow not to other indicators :-(
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
B Wilds Jan 24, 2020

Questioning the whole "Trump Economy" may seem in poor taste to those who have benefited so much but it is something we should do. What is being ignored is the structural issues that haunt America's competitiveness and far outweigh the benefits of lower taxes. We must also face the fact that deficit spending can only take the economy so far and carries with it a fair amount of negatives. The article below explores Trumponomics in all its glory and why this won't end well.

https://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-trump-economy-is-mirage-based-on.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Davis Jan 21, 2020

Let's use a balanced time period for statistics used....This paragraph seems to imply and well overstate the impact of Trump's first year in office and its impact on "deaths of despair". It seems any other author could cite the prior 8 years of the prior President and state an awful record on health as well, a time period that would match better with a long-term trend statistic.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jan 20, 2020

This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.
- Jan 22, 2020
  
  This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jan 21, 2020
  
  This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jan 20, 2020
  
  This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rodrigo Dias Jan 20, 2020

It's sad how "climate change" has dominated the environmental agenda. Nobody ever talks about biodiversity anymore. How many species are we extinguishing every year?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
D. V. Gendre Jan 20, 2020

To be an economist these days is so easy. Everything that is bad its The Trump. And everything that's good is clearly because of his predecessor.

We don't need any economists at all. Close all departments of economics at Universities. We just need Obama to write down his entire economic agenda and the planet would be saved!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
D. V. Gendre Jan 20, 2020

Its all about purchasing power! When looking at all the goods and services that are consumed by the American people I can't see any constrain because of wages. US citizens have more from everything in any regard. Yes it is also a matter of the sophisticated credit instruments that didn't really exist for workers in the 60's. But the fact that the US consumer recieves that much credit speaks for itself.

Mr. Stiglitz should be happy that wages are stagnant and US consumerism is faltering. It's good for Mr. Stiglitz' agenda about climate change! The best way to save energy is not to use it! So every good that is not produced and shipped to the US is a saving of energy and rescues the planet ;-)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ben Leet Jan 19, 2020

Comments I've read so far are inaccurate. Stiglitz mostly describes things well. My comment:

The Social Security Administration report on wages shows that 83 million workers on the low end of the wage scale, representing half of all workers, earn in wages collectively either 6.8% or 8.0% of the national income (depending on whether you take the Bureau of Economic Analysis total national income amount or favor the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation total amount).
The average wage income for 83 million workers is $14,725 a year. In comparison, the yearly income of a minimum wage worker, full-time year-round, is $15,080. (See SSA report: https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2018)

The high-earning 7.1% of taxpayers, representing 12 million taxpayers, earn 38.9% of all income, their average income is $495,000 a year. (This is data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, Overview, March 2019) The differential between the two groups is 34 times.
Another report compares the income of the top 1% of U.S. adults with the lower 50%, reporting that the income differential is 81 times, and that in 1980 the differential was 27 times. (from Distributional National Accounts, 2016, Washington Center for Equitable Growth)

Our economy has separated into the high earners and low earners. The United Way charity reports in its ALICE report that 40% of adults face hardship or poverty. It also reports that 40% of workers earn $15 or less per hour. While the stock market may be booming, wage growth has stalled, and more and more jobs are low-wage low-hour jobs. The Jobs Quality Index reports that since 1990 62.5% of the new additional private sector jobs are these low-wage low-hour jobs. (https://www.jobqualityindex.com/)
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that “average weekly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers”, representing 82% of all workers, were higher in December 1964 than in December 2019, 55 years ago. -- https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031 -- During that 55 years the BEA (dot gov) reports that the per capita disposable income has tripled from $14,350 to $44,455, "real disposable per capita income". (Table 2.1, Personal Income)

A dynamic similar to this, a booming stock market and slumping wage growth, resulted in the Great Depression. Marriner Eccles, the chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1935 to 1946 cited this dynamic as the cause of the Great Depression.
My blog: http://benL88.blogspot.com --
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jan 19, 2020

This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tom Larkin Jan 19, 2020

This is my standard package on global warming: Global warming is pure
fraud. If anyone is truly interested, simply go to YouTube and start
watching global warming videos. Those videos are overwhelmingly
negative towards climate change. Here are three videos to get you
started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo7U_yfCyeU&t=146s ,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbalx6UyAXY and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke26J0N74YI&t=14s The global warming
fraud has cost the US Treasury on the order of $500 billion over
thirty years for unnecessary alternative energy subsidies. For
example, the Arctic is not melting, watch the second video. The
problem is the corruption of the data. Almost ALL of the warming is
adjusted data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgk3xFHvWLE&t=59s Also
try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krrimqxDBMI and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk An early video to frame
the problem is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQPGU85cm4A One other
point: most of the pro-climate change articles are published in
publications that do not allow general comments. the result is climate
claims that have no basis in fact are allowed to stand unchallenged.
The definitive video of why we have this problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c I have many more videos
like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNy7tTY0Vek and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8KxVQFoyT0&t=1404s
- P. Kamath Jan 20, 2020
  
  Most of you guys are living in a La-La land to hold these views!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Rodrigo Dias Jan 20, 2020
  
  That's why it's so sad that "climate change" (or even worse, "global warming") had dominated the environmental agenda. It's too easy to be dismissed. A much more solid argument for the environment is erosion of biodiversity. Do you think it's a fraud, too?
  - howard thomas Apr 14, 2020
    
    climate change the environmentalist are pushing did 97% of scientists age of myth we do not affect the climate to any significant degree the temperature study they did was rigged they left out decade or two to fit their agenda it was debunked climate change is part of the Earth's natural cycle it's the way he spins and goes around and up and down to do universe it's been a baller ice before and or be a baller ice again but not by us how about a handed us who caused the other I say to one you know not humans
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - howard thomas Apr 14, 2020
    
    climate change the environmentalist are pushing did 97% of scientists age of myth we do not affect the climate to any significant degree the temperature study they did was rigged they left out decade or two to fit their agenda it was debunked climate change is part of the Earth's natural cycle it's the way he spins and goes around and up and down to do universe it's been a baller ice before and or be a baller ice again but not by us how about a handed us who caused the other I say to one you know not humans
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Patrick O'Connor Jan 19, 2020
  
  You get your information on climate change from UTube videos????? You choose to believe videos posted by God-knows-who who makes money every time you click on their video? C'mon.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert REYNOLDS Jan 19, 2020

I would like to thank Joe Stiglitz for this extremely well thought through, perspicacious and insightful piece.

In his essay, Joe presents an accurate and succinct picture of how Donald Trump has adversely affected life in America (and indirectly the rest of the world).

It is a sad indictment of human nature that so many of those who have chosen to respond so negatively to Joe's essay have so much trouble acknowledging reality. These people must start to understand that you cannot make a crisis go away by simply denying that it exists at all, or by being critical of the person who is highlighting the crisis and its causes.
- P. Kamath Jan 21, 2020
  
  Agree with you!
  - Robert REYNOLDS Jan 21, 2020
    
    Thank you for your supporting comment P.
    - P. Kamath Jan 21, 2020
      
      You are welcome, for you have saved a great deal of time for one finger typist like me. At this time I am watching another extremely important events ie. ongoing Senate impeachment trials. This the 3rd one that I have been doing in real time- which bear far reaching importance to American democracy.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Harrington Jan 19, 2020

There are serious social dislocations and misallocations associated with the global economy, but most are due to central bank policies and crony capitalism that predate the policies of the Trump administration. U6 numbers do not capture this well, but the labor participation rate shows positive signs after its free fall under Obama. It doesn’t help policy makers when anti-Trump political bias distorts the record.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dallas Weaver, Ph.D. Jan 19, 2020

Sorry, I hadn't read further for my previous comment. However, the failure now goes back to the progressive policies such as anti-coal regulations without supports for the people.
- Sancho Trout Jan 22, 2020
  
  You do know that the reason coal is dying has nothing to do with environmental regulations, which have always coddled the industries for both the mining and the burning of coal, don't you? It's just more expensive than fracked natural gas, wind and solar. Even strip mining is too expensive compared to these. it has nothing to do with "progressive" regulatory policies. Please--facts are important, and easily available, in a discussion like this.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dallas Weaver, Ph.D. Jan 19, 2020

If you are going to use the increased mortality in middle age, please get the facts correct. A decrease in medical treatment and insurance was not the cause. Social factors of addiction and losing employment to the "green economy" are more important. As this issue started before Trump, look to the liberal policy failures first.
- Patrick O'Connor Jan 19, 2020
  
  The article does not claim that the declining health coverage is the PRIMARY cause of Americans' lower life expectancy and poorer health relative to other developed countries. Pls read his next paragraph, for example. The claim in this paragraph is that Trump policies are only making things worse, because access to health care is one factor that contributes to life expectancy and health. And for this last claim there is a mountain of available evidence.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kent Webb Jan 19, 2020

Opiate deaths are now declining.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/478768-trump-drug-policy-director-touts-decline-in-overdose-related-deaths-in-30-years
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henry Miller Jan 19, 2020

So such is the desperation of the Left Professor Stiglitz, with his argumentum ab auctoritate, would have us reject the evidence of our own lying eyes. Understandable, I suppose, but that makes the argument no less a fallacy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Maitland Jan 19, 2020

This hatchet job really needs no comment. Stiglitz is parodying himself. But let me take just one example. Stiglitz says that the IMF has found that equality is essential for growth. But he has been caught red-handed cherrypicking his evidence. He completely passes over work suggesting the opposite like a study by Morelli & Atkinson (Economic Crises and Inequality (November 7, 2011) of the same vintage (as I recall) as the IMF's study. The late Sir Tony Atkinson was the dean of inequality studies. He also ignores the findings of 2019 Nobelists Banerjee & Duflo (2003) that changes in inequality (in any direction) are associated with reduced growth in the next period. Not to mention the elephant in the room: For decades China experienced extraordinary growth rates and widening inequality.

If, as Stiglitz says, trust is essential for economic growth, then Stiglitz is a one-man wrecking ball in our economy.
- Patrick O'Connor Jan 19, 2020
  
  I just looked at Morelli &Atkinson. They conclude the results are mixed, not what you claim. Also, it seems to me you're doing just what you're accusing Steiglitz of doing: cherry picking. There's lots of research out there that would repay wide reading. Have you read the IMF report?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jacques Saint-Pierre Jan 19, 2020

Trump influence on stock prices
Too many people attribute to Trump an impact on the increase of the U.S. stock prices without looking at what is happening elsewhere. For the last 12 months the S&P500 index increased by 24.67% and the CAC 40 (France) increased by 25.12%. Another example: The NYSE composite index increased by 16,72% for the same period, while the NIKKEI 225 (Tokyo Stock exchange) increased by 16.33%.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
The Capitalist Jan 19, 2020

Stieglitz is dishing out the same nonsense every other liberal media outlet is - attempting to attack Trump on the economy. He says GDP growth doesn’t recent the economy, then compares Trumps to Obamas. Well if doesnt reflect the economy, why are you comparing to Obamas? And you can bet the farm, that if Obama had high GDP growth, GDP growth would “reflect” the economy. But he didn’t. It was a stagnant sub 2%.his next claim - the stock market doesn’t reflect the either. Well, just because some folks don’t invest in the stock market doesn’t mean the market doesn’t reflect the economy. However, I guess it DID reflect the economy back in December of 2018, right? The market took a big hit. What was the news at the top of every hour on CNN and MSNBC? Recession coming! Well, that didn’t happen. So the stock market only reflects the economy when it’s going down?? And the other reason why it doesn’t now - the S&P rose only 1.4% during Obama’s last 2 years in office. Starting the day after Trump won the election, the S&P is up over 50%. Ha, that’s why the stock market suddenly doesn’t count. Within 2 years of Trumps election, manufacturing job had their greatest increase in 30 years. (Google Marketwatch Manufacturing jobs). Yes, they have leveled off now, but they are way higher then their collapse under Obama. Trump reversed a lions swath of Obama’s economic polices, and the economy and a to market is roaring. In men’s either declined or remained stagnant during the entirety of Obama’s presidency. They are finally rising now. Yes, deficits have risen, but with 2 years of the Bush tax cuts deficits collapsed. Time will tell on that. Stiglitz is just like every other leftist, using deception to further their narrative, and depending on the low info voter to nod their head in agreement. The informed voter is a liberals worst nightmare.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tad Furtado Jan 19, 2020

It’s hard to read past this point. Certainly, the parade of horribles listed may be unintended or at least willingly traded off consequences of tax cuts, deregulation, etc. But they are hardly their primary goal.
- Rodrigo Dias Jan 20, 2020
  
  "That would allow" is very different from "Their primary goal is".
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Carl Stoll Jan 19, 2020
  
  Yeah, well then what IS their primary goal, wise guy? It has long been proven that deregulation does not raise growth rates or employment. So what is the purpose of those measures if not to wreck society?
  - Tad Furtado Jan 19, 2020
    
    I’m not saying they are good actors, just that their goal is not to wreck society. More profits. That’s the goal of pushing for fewer regulations, which normally means reduced costs and greater opportunities.
    
    That you and the author think that hurting people or the environment is a primary goal, well I don’t know what to think of it.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jacques Saint-Pierre Jan 19, 2020

You are right about the economic illiteracy of the plebians but wrong about the percentage of Stiglitz’s readers. Surely less than 5%.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Gordon Jan 19, 2020

Well Stiglitz makes some comments, his political bias is obvious. I suggest he get out and walk around in the real world. People are busy. So busy it is hard to find good help. To blame Trump for the declining health of US citizens based on policies implemented in his first three years is to attribute more power to him than even Trump boasts of. And to suggest removal of some regulations is somehow necessarily a step backwards is just naive.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kent Webb Jan 19, 2020

If you follow life expectancy, the clear causes of our lower expectancy have been suicide, opiates, obesity and severe flu seasons. The causes of the first three and their upward trends predated Trump and the flu season severity has more to do with the strains and vaccines than with the President.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew (Andy) Crow Jan 19, 2020

"....Reagan who handed the keys to power to business,..."

That might have been his intention, but it's the bankers who have them now. And the bankers are only playing zero sum games. That only ever ends one way.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Deborah Krupp Jan 19, 2020

We are not a socialist country which does cause for an argument here. We again have welfare in place that keeps people from being successful. As for incarceration we have a larger population. Your comparison date is not validated. We are the only country that I know that gives welfare checks freely upon arrival which has reduced our social welfare system and healthcare. This also includes insurance. I have traveled with an illness and their are restrictions that for me to live there permanently due to healthcare cost factor.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Deborah Krupp Jan 19, 2020

South America lithium battery damage is greater than this have you completely researched all countries
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Deborah Krupp Jan 19, 2020

I agree on this problem due to at one time monopolies were divided up and was suppose to give way which to entrepreneurs. Now these monopsony are definitely a powerful problem. If I can help it I refuse to buy at the stores in this video due to the wage problem and their commitment to control internet, retail and buyers needs
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
georges makhtouf Jan 19, 2020

"Real median weekly earnings are just 2.6% above their level when Trump took office. And these increases have not offset long periods of wage stagnation."

Presumably the long periods of wage stagnation include the 8 years of Obama administration, so the Trump economy, with a 2.6% increase in real median weekly earnings represents a massive improvement.
- Patrick O'Connor Jan 19, 2020
  
  If you recall, the de-regulated US financial sector plunged the US and most of the developed world into a deep recession in 2007, which caused massive income and employment loss to ordinary Americans. You may have forgotten this........
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Ben Leet Jan 19, 2020
  
  Try looking at BLS data for the 82% of workers who are nonsupervisory. It shows that "average weekly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers" was higher in December 1964 than in December 2019, 55 years of wage stagnation for 80% of workers. The economy per capita disposable income tripled, it's now $44,455 in "real" inflation terms, when it was $15,000 in 1964. BEA.gov, Table 2.1. For the nonsupervisory workers see: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Andrew (Andy) Crow Jan 19, 2020
  
  That would obviously depend on the real rate of inflation in the two periods being compared. And the real rate of inflation is a mystery because most of it is hidden in the asset markets and doesn't show up in the high street economy 'shopping basket' metrics.
  
  Given that unemployment figures don't reflect the reality of employment (specifically under-employment) , and inflation figures don't reflect the reality of real inflation the government's economic managers are flying blind.
  
  So the President can make whatever claims he wishes based on spurious headline figures. As indeed can the rest of us, because we don't have meaningful data.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael McMaster Jan 19, 2020

Let’s see. In thirty six months Trump has successfully caused the deaths and despair of millions of Americans. Get a grip! Nothing Trump has done has effected climate change. People still have the same health care. Just because regulations were removed doesn’t mean we went into a deep dive into oblivion.
- Andrew (Andy) Crow Jan 19, 2020
  
  "... Just because regulations were removed doesn’t mean we went into a deep dive into oblivion."
  
  How about a shallow dive into oblivion. Does that feel okay ?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Klaus Kastner Jan 19, 2020

And this author is the holder of a Nobel Prize in economics? Good president comes in and life expectancy goes up. Bad president comes in and life expectancy goes down immediately. Or not? Anyone who has respect for Keynes would consider employment the number 1 priority of economic policy. Check how employment developed since 2017! Or rather: how unemployment has gone down.
- Andrew (Andy) Crow Jan 19, 2020
  
  It's not recorded unemployment figures that count. What counts is under-employment of the nation's principle resource it's labor force. That figure is nearer to twenty percent than the current official unemployment figures. And by a country mile. Keep ignoring that and the country is in economic fantasy land.
  - Klaus Kastner Jan 20, 2020
    
    I remember Paul Krugman asking the day after the 2016 election and after the initial DOW drop "Will the economy ever recover?" and he answered his own question with "Never!"
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - Klaus Kastner Jan 20, 2020
    
    Focus on comparing apples with apples. Otherwise you will always find a statistic which proves your point. The simple question is: is the economy today stronger than 4 years ago and it seems that the answer is obvious.
    - Andrew (Andy) Crow Jan 20, 2020
      
      "....is the economy today stronger than 4 years ago and it seems that the answer is obvious...."
      
      Obviously....? stronger or not ? It looks stronger, but is that at the risk of greater instability ? Do you think the finance sector is more or less liable to sudden collapse than it was in 2008. (4 years is neither here nor there)
      
      Much of what I'm reading suggests more money sloshing about, in the rarefied financial markets, more, and more complex, derivative-type trading vehicles and too little matching investment in productive economy is a recipe for a repeat financial and banking crash. A stronger economy needs a foundation and I'm deeply skeptical about the current foundations being more substantial than a bubble of methane and potentially just as explosive. :-(
      - Klaus Kastner Jan 20, 2020
        
        I share your concern about the risks in the financial sector where my favorite analyst predicts a "Great Reset" at some point in the 2020's. Perhaps in 2029 to celebrate an anniversary? But I don't see what the Fed's policy has to do with the responsibility of the administration.
        
        Trump may or may not be the greatest con man on Earth but he certainly has conned the American economic agents, private and corporate, into believing that the best is yet to come and optimism grows on optimism. Psychology is half the game in economics. The vast majority of economic news which have come out of the US in the last 2-3 years have been positive news, and positive news feed on themselves. So I truly think the US economy is booming relative to 4 years ago and Trump's personality and conmanship has a lot to do with it.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - Douglas Knauer Jan 19, 2020
    
    That's strange, when we said the economy was a shambles, we were tracking unemployment figures. Oh, wait, under this president (whether he deserves credit or not) those numbers have decreased massively! What are the whingers to gripe about now? Oh, let's move on to UNDERemployment so you can still claim the president is a failure.
    
    I call that moving the goal posts. Changing the rules. Maybe even sour grapes.
    - Andrew (Andy) Crow Jan 20, 2020
      
      I'm not suggesting under-employment is something new or down to the Trump presidency. I'm suggesting that figures representative of reality would make economic planning less of a guessing game.
      
      For the record I didn't rate Obama as much of a president; he was just very adept at staying beneath the radar. Trump's style is very different, brash and 'populist', but it's content that matters more than style. The Donald is very good talking-up what seems to me to be policy achievements lacking in substance. It will be interesting to see if he can keep the illusion going through a second term (I'm assuming he'll win a second term).
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
About Face Jan 19, 2020

For all the brilliance of Joseph Stizlger's analysis as an economist, this is not read by the 95% of voters. When Trump can obfuscate, segregate, the statistics of individual deaths, incarcerations, under employment, the plebians don't see, don't hear, don't know and thus, don't react. This is the Trump magic. Warm the frog in slow boil, the frog becomes comfortable- new normal, doze off into being cooked. Trump, is a master sorcerer and hard to beat.
- Kevin Remillard Jan 19, 2020
  
  Stiglitz Analysis is Syllogistic Fallacy
  
  Death by homicide and transportation combined are twice the rates than in other developed countries. Obesity is another measurement effecting life expectancy and we, the U.S., lead the world. The ACA's low Medicaid payment rates are the primary reason physicians indicate for lack of participation in the program. 91% of GPs accept new patients with private insurance, 89% accept new Medicare patients, and 68% for Medicaid. Stating that a President has worked hard to make sure that more Americans lack health insurance could be re-purposed by asking; What policies contribute to Americans having, particularly the poor, access to quality, timely, and lower cost health care? When you start assuming one of the major or minor premises to be true, even though they're not based in fact, you have Syllogistic Fallacy.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
bruce birkett Jan 19, 2020

let's acknowlege that Obamacare is still creating part-time only jobs due to its employer insurance mandates, the average empyer cost of which in 2019 was usd 20,000 per year.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kevin Remillard Jan 19, 2020

Death by homicide and transportation combined are twice the rates than in other developed countries. Obesity is another measurement effecting life expectancy and we, the U.S., lead the world. The ACA's low Medicaid payment rates are the primary reason physicians indicate for lack of participation in the program. 91% of GPs accept new patients with private insurance, 89% accept new Medicare patients, and 68% for Medicaid. Stating that a President has worked hard to make sure that more Americans lack health insurance could be re-purposed by asking; What policies contribute to Americans having, particularly the poor, access to quality, timely, and lower cost health care? When you start assuming one of the major or minor premises to be true, even though they're not based in fact, you have Syllogistic Fallacy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Jan 19, 2020

Trump is reported to have heavily relied on poor whites' votes in the last election but he has done nothing to respond to their expectation. Those people do not know they have been deceived. "When people lose their jobs and income and see their lives falling apart they react in strange ways, many times not in their best interest," as someone commented on Justin Gest/The New Minority, amazon usa.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
华尔街文摘华尔街文摘 Jan 18, 2020

America's problems are mostly caused by Obama and little Bush, both spent too much money in wars in Middle -east, and let our market being occupied by China goods. exhausted the financial means of USA.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
packardday Jan 18, 2020

So, who are you going to believe, a world renowned author and Nobel Laureate in economics or your own lying 401K/Roth?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Murali Krishna Hari Jan 17, 2020

I respect Joseph Stiglitz comments, but his analysis of life expectancy is completely wrong. Just using some data to justify Trump is bad. In fact drugs/opiods/guns/high medical costs are not a new phenomenon. It exists for decades, we are just now seeing its long term impact.
I agree regarding lax rules in environment regulations. I feel US with its technological power should lead world in controlling carbon emissions and renewable. After internet revolution, this could be next level of economic transformation which will benefit millions all over the world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jan 17, 2020

In an economy, like any business, most figures happening today are a result things done five years ago, or sometimes fifty years ago. Trying to tie them back to their exact causes is mostly a futile exercise. America's malaise seems to mostly go back to Reagan who handed the keys to power to business, at the expense of everyone else. Because this new ideology coasted on previous US efforts, people confused this with success and so both parties continued with trickle down neo-liberal ideas that have now proved to be bankrupt. The real question is not what the economy is doing today, but what one needs to do for a better future, five or fifty years ahead.
- Michael Harrington Jan 20, 2020
  
  Reagan was merely a product of the commercialist takeover of our culture of liberty and justice. GDP, not liberty or justice, has become the measure of all policies. The real culprit is fiat money that enables all this political discretion and removes all credit constraints.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/5Wv5EPmpt

A verdade sobre a economia de Trump

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

A verdade sobre a economia de Trump

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification