A view if public access areas of Trump Tower

Economics

Трамптың 3% өсімі 1%-ға тең

Sep 11, 2017 Kenneth Rogoff

КЭМБРИДЖ – АҚШ президенті Дональд Трамп оның саясаты алдағы көп жылдар бойы тұрақты 3-4% өсімді қамтамасыз етеді деп мақтанған. Оның болжауы, арасында Уолл-стрит пен АҚШ Федералдық резерв жүйесі де бар көптеген кәсіби сарапшылардың АҚШ 2%-ға тең өсімге қол жеткізуінің өзі керемет сәттілік деген үміттеріне сәйкес емес.

Бірақ Трамптың болжамы дұрыс болуы мүмкін бе? Егер олай болса, бұл қаншалықты оның саясатының арқасында болмақ және тезірек өсу қоршаған орта мен табыс теңсіздігіне ұзақ мерзімді шығындарды әкелер ме? Қор нарығы тек өсу қарқыны туралы қам жеуі мүмкін, бірақ американдықтардың көбі өсімге қалай қол жеткізгені туралы қатты алаңдауы керек.

АҚШ-тың экономикалық өсу қарқыны бойынша Трамптың болжамы ессіз емес. Экономикалық деректердің тұрақты ағыны жыл сайынғы қарқын 2,5 пайызға дейін артқанын көрсетеді, бұл Трамп пен сарапшылар арасындағы айырмашылықты шамамен теңестірді. Сонымен қатар, Tрамп төрағалығының алғашқы жарты жылында жұмыспен қамту жоғары болып, бір миллионнан астам жұмыс орындары ашылды, қорлар да жаңа жоғары деңгейге көтеріліп, екеуі де жоғары тұтынуды қамтамасыз етуде.

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

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Kenneth Rogoff

Writing for PS since 2002
243 Commentaries

Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University and recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, was the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003. He is co-author of This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly (Princeton University Press, 2011) and author of The Curse of Cash (Princeton University Press, 2016).

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 Comments on this article

Peter Burgess Sep 17, 2017

The focus on GDP growth as an indicator of the health of an economy is a big mistake. Much of conventional economic thinking dates back to the 19th and early 20th century and a whole lot has changed since then. To achieve more quality of life for more people AND to achieve environmental sustainability including climate stability will require substantial expenditures ... that is investment ... and that could easily result in a GDP growth number for the USA exceeding 3%. The problem is that conventional political thinking about public finance and debt probably won't let this scale of investment take place ... which would be a huge mistake. The analysis of national economies (and indeed the global economy) are not well served by the metrics being used for decision making both at the macro level (Governments and Central Banks) nor the micro level (Business, Commercial Banks, Families) and metrics that are much better and linked to the way the modern complex socio-enviro-economic system really works are needed. As I see it the limiting factors for progress are not technology (amazing) and people (more than enough) but the natural environment (severely degraded and getting worse / climate change - food / climate change - storms and sea level rise / etc.), bad decision making (driven by profit and wealth accumulation to the exclusion of almost everything else) and the money system itself (good for banks, but constraining for everyone else). Better metrics can be a game-changer and emerging technologies may make it possible for the metrics that are really needed to be implemented.
Peter Burgess http://truevaluemetrics.org
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis Stouch Sep 17, 2017

This is hilarious.

Where ya been for the last 14 years Rogoff? Inequality has been GROWING for that long and you were silent as a church mouse.

Now Trump is gonna make it worse?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard Di Lorenzo Sep 14, 2017

Forgive me for my "ignorance" but would someone like to explain why inflation is a good thing? I know it will certainly help the debtors like all of the Governments around the world, and those who are indebted long term, but other than that?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henry Crum Sep 13, 2017

Trump's moves are more for the 90% to 99% than the 99% to 100%. Yes, both groups will be helped, but it is designed to promote mobility within that group to produce businesses that will move the 90 to 99 to the 99 to 100. That is the way to create new businesses, new jobs, and greater wealth starting with the wealthy. It increases the gap between the rich and the poor, but the poor to get wealthier, just not as much. It helps everyone, just helps the rich more.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ted Peters Sep 13, 2017

Let's start with a premise: Professor Rogoff desires big government (for whatever reason, conscious and/or unconscious). His op-ed then writes itself.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David McCarley Sep 13, 2017

To begin with, due to the calculations of economic growth across the population, economic sectors, etc. it is literally impossible for the 3% to be for the 1% - not how economic growth is calculated or happens. The author is apparently closely aligned with and stuck on the policies of the last administration - which never came close to sustaining 3% growth and helped NOBODY to grow EXCEPT Wall Street over 8 years. So you can see the disconnect, both in fact and in the author's worldview.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard Di Lorenzo Sep 13, 2017

What is he saying with "By and large, the most successful bankers in recent years have been exactly the types of experts Trump seems to avoid." No doubt he must be referring to people just like himself. No examples cited. Anyone again like himself who would write an entire book about getting rid of cash after the latest stolen identity fiasco with the credit rating company is certainly someone to be listened to no doubt. Another Harvard PH.D with book learning from the long line of Keynesians who control the world's central banks. The "horse" has long since died, and further beatings should get us to 30 Trillion in debt in no time.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Scott Sanger Sep 13, 2017

POTUS has no control over the economy, the author knows this but still assigns the economic condition to potus.. You are wrong to assume trump wants more or less war, he wants us to focus on fixing our country, he is no hurry to drum up more enemies.
Why does the left complain about the 1% but refuse to spend their time and money trying to get to the 1% level.....even though democrats in congress have more wealth than the R's. The elite know no party confines.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Sep 12, 2017

So Ken seems to favor "significant (US) military superiority over its rivals" and finds error in "those who...want to reduce US military involvement overseas". Has he fallen under the spell of Darth Feldstein? He also notoriously wants to curtail the availability of cash in order to facilitate negative interest rates. Is he lining up such notions the way Paul Morphy was said to array women's shoes, in a perfect arc?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ALAN MANAS Sep 12, 2017

Dear Reader..

This author and his academic brethren are responsible for the policies that have created this low economic growth rate in the U.S. and Europe.

You notice they are focused on the effect economic growth will have on "income inequality" and the "environment." They are totally right. Higher rates of economic growth would raise income inequality and over the short term it would have negative effects on the environment.

Permanent higher economic growth rates require increased domestic savings and higher investment rates. That means to achieve those goals you need to, near term, suppress consumption and increase the rewards from savings and investment. We have never seen any other way.

We have seen Singapore go from a $300 per capita GDP in the 1960's to $57,000 per capita currently. Does their population support the government? They might have more income inequality today, but I am not sure of that. I am sure their environment is better. China has sent over 20,000 officials to Singapore to study their methods. China is just making an adjusted copy. That's what the West needs to do.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/Bw0AIBDkk

Трамптың 3% өсімі 1%-ға тең

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Trump’s Growth Charade

Log in/Register

Трамптың 3% өсімі 1%-ға тең

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification