NEW YORK – As US President-elect Donald Trump fills his cabinet, what have we learned about the likely direction and impact of his administration’s economic policy?
To be sure, enormous uncertainties remain. As in many other areas, Trump’s promises and statements on economic policy have been inconsistent. While he routinely accuses others of lying, many of his economic assertions and promises – indeed, his entire view of governance – seem worthy of Nazi Germany’s “big lie” propagandists.
Trump will take charge of an economy on a strongly upward trend, with third-quarter GDP growing at an impressive annual rate of 3.2% and unemployment at 4.6% in November. By contrast, when President Barack Obama took over in 2009, he inherited from George W. Bush an economy sinking into a deep recession. And, like Bush, Trump is yet another Republican president who will assume office despite losing the popular vote, only to pretend that he has a mandate to undertake extremist policies.
The only way Trump will square his promises of higher infrastructure and defense spending with large tax cuts and deficit reduction is a heavy dose of what used to be called voodoo economics. Decades of “cutting the fat” in government has left little to cut: federal government employment as a percentage of the population is lower today than it was in the era of small government under President Ronald Reagan some 30 years ago.
With so many former military officers serving in Trump’s cabinet or as advisers, even as Trump cozies up to Russian President Vladimir Putin and anchors an informal alliance of dictators and authoritarians around the world, it is likely that the US will spend more money on weapons that don’t work to use against enemies that don’t exist. If Trump’s health secretary succeeds in undoing the careful balancing act that underlies Obamacare, either costs will rise or services will deteriorate – most likely both.
During the campaign, Trump promised to get tough on executives who outsource American jobs. He is now holding up the news that the home heating and air conditioning manufacturer Carrier will keep some 800 jobs in my home state of Indiana as proof that his approach works. Yet the deal will cost taxpayers $7 million, and still allow Carrier to outsource 1,300 jobs to Mexico. This is not a sound industrial or economic policy, and it will do nothing to help raise wages or create good jobs across the country. It is an open invitation for a shakedown of the government by corporate executives seeking handouts.
Similarly, the increase in infrastructure spending is likely to be accomplished through tax credits, which will help hedge funds, but not America’s balance sheet: such programs’ long track record shows that they deliver little value for money. The cost to the public will be especially high in an era when the government can borrow at near-zero interest rates. If these private-public partnerships are like those elsewhere, the government will assume the risks, and the hedge funds will assume the profits.
The debate just eight years ago about “shovel-ready” infrastructure seems to be a distant memory. If Trump chooses shovel-ready projects, the long-term impact on productivity will be minimal; if he chooses real infrastructure, the short-term impact on economic growth will be minimal. And back-loaded stimulus has its own problems, unless it is managed extremely carefully.
If Trump’s pick for US Treasury Secretary, the Goldman Sachs and hedge-fund veteran Steven Mnuchin, is like others from his industry, the expertise he will bring to the job will be in tax avoidance, not constructing a well-designed tax system. The “good” news is that tax reform was inevitable, and was likely to be undertaken by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and his staff – giving the rich the less progressive, more capital-friendly tax system that Republicans have long sought. With the abolition of the estate tax, the Republicans would finally realize their long-held ambition of creating a dynastic plutocracy – a far cry from the “equality of opportunity” maxim the party once trumpeted.
Large tax cuts and large expenditure increases inevitably lead to large deficits. Reconciling this with Trump’s promise to reduce the deficit will probably entail a return to Reagan-era magical thinking: despite decades of proof to the contrary, this time the stimulus to the economy brought by tax cuts for the rich will be so large that tax revenues will actually increase.
This story doesn’t end well for Trump’s angry, displaced Rust Belt voters. Unhinged budgetary policies will induce the US Federal Reserve to normalize interest rates faster. Some see incipient inflation (given the low unemployment rate); some believe the long period of ultra-low interest rates has distorted capital markets; and some want to “replenish their ammunition,” so that the Fed can lower interest rates should the economy slow down again.
Trump has argued that the Fed should raise interest rates. The Fed, which took the first step toward normalization in early December, will almost certainly deliver – and Trump will soon regret what he wished for. There’s a good chance that the monetary contraction will outweigh the fiscal stimulus, curbing the Obama growth spurt currently underway. Higher interest rates will undercut construction jobs and increase the value of the dollar, leading to larger trade deficits and fewer manufacturing jobs – just the opposite of what Trump promised. Meanwhile, his tax policies will be of limited benefit to middle-class and working families – and will be more than offset by cutbacks in health care, education, and social programs.
If Trump starts a trade war – by, say, following through on his vow to impose a 45% tariff on imports from China and to build a wall on the US border with Mexico – the economic impact will be even more severe. Trump’s cabinet of billionaires could continue to buy their Gucci handbags and $10,000 Ivanka bracelets, but ordinary Americans’ cost of living would increase substantially; and without components from Mexico and elsewhere, manufacturing jobs would become even scarcer.
To be sure, a few new jobs will be created, mainly in the lobbying shops along K Street in Washington, DC, as Trump refills the swamp that he promised to drain. Indeed, America’s bog of legal corruption is likely to reach a depth not seen since President Warren G. Harding’s administration in the 1920s.
And there really is no silver lining to the cloud that now hangs over the US and the world. As bad as his administration will be for America’s economy and workers, its policies on climate change, human rights, the media, and ensuring peace and security are likely to be no less damaging for everyone else.
Comments
Hide Comments Read Comments (86)Please log in or register to leave a comment.
Comment Commented philip meguire
I submit that an economy is socialist when total government benefits paid to households exceeds total dividends received by households. This has been true of the USA from 1945 to the present day. 1968-2003, Social Security benefits alone exceeded dividends received by households. This will resume being the case by 2020 or so. Read more
Comment Commented philip meguire
ObamaCare is a turgid and impractical mess, not a careful balancing act. The hard reality of massive adverse selection will sink it. ObamaCare utterly fails a pragmatism test that Medicare for all easily passes.
The bad news for America's workers is as follows. Let Y = Gross National Factor Income. The first figure in each row below is wages/ Y, the second is (Cost of employee benefits)/Y.
1970 56 7.5
2000 50 11
2015 46 11
1970-2000, the 6 percentage point decline in the share of Y made up of wages was partly offset by more generous fringe benefits. But 2000-15, the share of wages continued to decline, with no offsetting rise whatsoever in the generosity of fringe benefits. BTW, wages includes executive bonuses and the enormous compensation of Wall Street bankers and the like. If investment banking and people ranked EVP or higher in any industry, were excluded from these data, these calculations would be even more striking. Read more
Comment Commented Bob Bronson
How did Stiglitz become a laureate? Besides being a political wacko, he has never understood the business cycle enough to be able to forecast a recession well in advance, or even as they have just started.
He talks and talks saying nothing, wasting everybody's time.
Bob Bronson
Bronson Capital Markets Research
51 years in financial services, 49 advising
institutional and professional investors
Read more
Comment Commented Janos Nagy
Well isn't it what actually a nice communist wants? After all globalization is nothing else but take the wealth of the rich countries and give it to the poor. And in the countries do the same take the wealth from anyone who makes more than Jose and give it to the poorer.
So if Trump wants to stop the wealth and the jobs that could create it taken from the usa he is a náci but of course that leaves Stiglitz a stalinist and when you check which one killed more it's about the same.
And just one economic input.when Obama had an average 1.2 trillion deficit spending a year and that is more than 5 percent of the gdp and got back less than 3 percent gdp growth that is an actual recession.
The truth Stiglitz become a propagandists for globalist idiologies and that is a communist system in the grand scale.
Taxation is for social economic benifits like schools roads and others that the society norm dictates.
Taxation can never fix a problem that caused by wrong economic policies just like freetrade and the globalist agendas. Read more
Comment Commented Robert Wolff
Stiglitz presents a hopeless view. I voted for Trump to give functioning Capitalism a last gasp chance, with the alternative being "Socialism Now!" under the Democrat alternative.
Am well aware the Trump agenda is likely to fail, and with the Working Class in an uproar a return to a Democrat Administration in 2020 - and the institution of irreversible Socialism at that point in time. But there would be one big difference in the 2020 election and the 2016 election - Centrism (Globalism for the Rich; Socialism for Everybody Else) is officially dead, so we will be looking at a Sanders style Socialism in 2020, not Hillary Centrism - and a populist onslaught against Wall Street as the single culprit. Read more
Comment Commented Colin Doyle
So many public intellectuals are making judgements on the base of very few actual announced Trump policies!
OK, Project Syndicate columnists mostly do not like Mr Trump. But there he is, the elected disruptor - or, we can hope, innovator.
What does it serve to go on denigrating him at such volume ? I doubt his team is taking any notice at all of the cacophony being thrown at them. The risk is that they circle the wagons and ignore even constructive criticism.
Wouldn't it be better to tell the Trump team constructively how the President should do good from his own alt right political perspective ?
Like work with China to insist for both sides on balanced trade, rather than 45% tariffs. Work intensively with Mexico to patrol and interdict along the borders, instead of a great south west wall. Work with the Fed to create a big infrastructure fund, so he can forget about putting tolls on everything new to pay for public-private partnerships. Work with Nato allies to ensure that they all pay the 2% - no need to threaten, they all know he has the right to ask. Read more
Comment Commented Robbie Jena
We need infrastructure...may be one trillion or more. Then we talk about the future in three years. Do not jump the gun from the leftist side...thank you. Read more
Comment Commented Jose Oyola
Economists who provide opinions without evidence, right or left, do a disservice to their profession. Stiglitz should not imitate Kudlow. Read more
Comment Commented Robert O'Regan
Joe, I have followed you since the 60's; recently you have become the bitchy old grandfather sitting in the dark corner, bitchin'.
Nothing you say is supported by facts, it is all whining..... GDP is going up if you include debt financing as productive etc etc. If there was a harvesting priority on our old farm in Saskatchewan I can guess where you would be. You have become the perfect farmer, weather is against you, absolutely nothing is right except your bank account. Talk about a negative nabob! The one correct thing you are doing is underlining the ability to not accept a slightly different paradigm. This reflects the position of your colleagues, the press, the 1%ers (of course). You will not even allow for a new set of crooks to take over the reigns as suggested by Sesame Street economists. I would wish you a Merry Xmas but, I know, I know..... Read more
Comment Commented john zac
Bravo, well said, academics should start "outing" sycophants Read more
Comment Commented Brent Beach
Only the .1% and the anarchists have reason to happy that Trump won.
The .1% firmly believe that their share of GDP will increase.
The anarchists also believe this, but hope that rising inequality will lead to societal breakdown and the revolution they eed.
The masses of Trump voters (and all those who did not vote) chose to give the finger to business as usual. There is nothing in Trump for them. Read more
Comment Commented Hazel Henderson
Prof. Stiglitz foretells the likely "buyers remorse" of Trump voters .In addition, the Trump Organization has been assessed by the social and environmental audit firm MHCInternational ( Geneva, London,Washington DC ) with the lowest score ever recorded in their 20 years of such research on corporate accountability . Read more
Comment Commented douglas ungredda
From an institutional framework of Checks and Balances, Trump's presidency will marked by scandals involving "Cheques and Balances" (Cheques for gross graft and corruption with illegal Bank account balances in tax havens"). Read more
Comment Commented Monirul Islam Sheikh
Dr. Joseph E. Stiglitz says "what have we learned about the likey direction" and then he say "to be sure"...the lies are simply visible and this is scare-tactic by George Soros and his puppets. We have seen how one (1) trillion dollar return to wall-street in recent days; and if there were no hope- one single Japanese investor would not pledge a 50 billion dollar investment in USA if he saw uncertainties in future. "Third-quarter GDP growing at an impressive annual rate of 3.2% and unemployment at 4.6%" ...these figures are standard manipulations. The real truth are ahead of us and there are no reason to be fearful about. Read more
Comment Commented James Edwards
There's an upside for the Japanese investor for investing $50B as he is owner of the Sprint and wants to merge it with T-Mobile and they only way that can happen is through changes in the DOJ anti trust division allowing that to go through as the current one rejected it. It plans do it with $100B sovereign fund because it has too much debt on its books. Read more
Comment Commented Kenneth Gallaher
Yes tRUMP voters are soon going to find out they were suckers in many ways. The economy is going to tank. tRUMP will make Shrub look like a veritable genius. Read more
Comment Commented Robert REYNOLDS
How refreshing it is to read an article written by an American who has his head screwed on the right way and makes a great deal of sense. I agree with every word written in this article.
It is such a pity that Joseph E. Stiglitz is not going to be the next President of the United States and I very sincerely mean that. Read more
Comment Commented Jeff Rutledge
I have no problem with the eco-political establishment destroying themselves by continuing to double down on such viewpoints. Its their right. Just ask former economist Paul Krugman and the left wing media for instructions on how its done. Read more
Comment Commented Mauricio Duran-Loriga
The usual suspects within the economic mainstream media are starting to parrot here and there that Trump will be a repeat of Reagan economic policies. Houston, if this is true, we have a problem.
When the objective is the same, but the starting points are not only different but opposed by several orders of magnitude, the end result can not possibly repeat that of the 80's.
However, there are remarkable similarities at the emotional level if we compare 1981 to 2017. Reagan had been preceded by 4 Presidents in 17 years where the image of the US had deteriorated measurably both internally and abroad, and society was fed up of peddlers, losers, and a complete lack of leadership.
Trump is been preceded by 16 years of dumb policies at all levels by blah politicians and a complete lack of verifiable international leadership (today UN voting is a shame on long term foreign US policy). Read more
Comment Commented Bruno Berewono
An overly pessimistic view of an incoming administration. Trump has defied all kinds of predictions and analysis and who knows, he may just defy yours as well good ole Prof. Personally I wish Hillary had won the elections but on second thought I think there should be a shake up of the system once and for all and perhaps Trump may just make that shake up possible. Read more
Comment Commented Jeremy Edwards
The bias throughout the piece makes it almost unreadable, even if I agree with most of what Stieglitz is saying. How can you sign off the article mentioning human rights, when standing firmly in Camp Obama, you are supporting a President who vetoed the version of the TPP that would have made slavery illegal? The problem with Stiglitz is he is still partisan...in a world where the only people with clean hands are independents. Read more
Comment Commented Jeremy Edwards
Is it really necessary to compare Trump to the Nazi's at the top of the piece? We are all aware of what the potential threat is...but you call wolf too many times before the real danger comes, and people won't hear you when it matters most. Save your ammo. Read more
Comment Commented Robert REYNOLDS
Jeremy, I would suggest that you stick with Breitbart or Fox news. You will find more that is to your liking in those sources. Read more
Comment Commented Ga Steli
While I agree with a mostl of Mr. Stieglitz's points, and his thinking in general, I must say that there are too many points, and some of them, the Putin paragraph, needs deeper analysis. The claims about Obamacare ought to be given some support.
There may be a need to catalog the promises and the problems that may arise, but practically all of Mr. Trump's proposals are incredibly vague; part of the intuitive style of mentation that goes along so well on the internet, a new art form perhaps. a new way of experiencing the world, some of his admirers seem to say. And so I find myself questioning the wisdom of wasting so many words on concepts that are so ill-defined. Better, it seems, to wait and see what transpires. Read more
Comment Commented Bob Trumpkin
Congrats to Stiglitz, he didn't waste time in using the work Nazi. The left has to keep the meme alive!
On a more serious note, why does he say that Trump will take charge of an economy on a "strongly upward trend" then later say Trump will regret raising rates. The Fed always raises rates when the economy improves (ain't it strange under Obama there was only 1 minor rate hike), so what Stiglitz is saying is that the economy isn't that strong (thanks to Obama ignoring structural problems).
I noticed he left out the low labor participation rate (highest in decades) and the large increase in part time jobs (thanks Obamacare), those are the main reasons for the low unemployment rate. The left prefers people on welfare and dependent on the state, not actually contributing to society. Nothing really new in the article that hasn't been regurgitated by the left many times. Read more
Comment Commented Jose araujo
"The left prefers people on welfare and dependent on the state, not actually contributing to society."... I think the one regurgitating is you.
What kind of sick mind thinks like this? Celebrating the misfortune of others and feeling like a lord of the universe, are you?
And you still kid on how the left keeps bringing the word Nazi to make people aware of guys like you…
Read more
Comment Commented B Wilds
Our economy has for years been driven by deficit spending. With so many people thinking that deficit government spending helps drive the economy at some point our leaders and those across the globe might want to give us taxpayers a break. Why Not Stop Taxation Altogether? It would send the GDP soaring.
Just End It! Such a policy would go a long way to diminish the divide polarizing our nation. I do not know anyone who likes to pay taxes or go through hours and hours of record keeping and filling out forms. The article below delves into the benefits of such a policy.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/10/why-not-stop-taxation-altogether-just.html Read more
Comment Commented Marc Sargen
I keep on seeing how Trump, THREATENING a trade wars is a disaster. No it is not a non-risk proposition but honestly treating a trade war is much less than treating a nuclear war which was a standard policy from the 50's through the 80's.
If the US started a trade war it would hurt the US but maim China, Mexico, and other nations dependent on the US market.
No other administration has been willing the risk the harm for the potential gain but Trump is know to both threaten & follow though on the threat, something that China, North Korea, Iran, & Russia have frequently done. But Trump also usually can get a deal because he's know to commit joint harm if he think he can take the blow better.
This is a risky strategy, but it is a completely viable strategy. We'll see if it works but prior administration have weaken their hands by unilaterally removing it from the negotiating table. Read more
Comment Commented Robert Geert
Statements like "If the US started a trade war it would hurt the US but maim China" remind me how Obama imposed high tariffs on Chinese tyres (and, of course, how China retaliated with tariffs on chicken and so on). If you are looking for a "trade-war", it's hard to imagine how Trump will do much more than Obama: tariffs, disputes, and so on. Those have not been really political (or economic) winning moves for Obama. Trump is the new and shiny thing now, but I'm curious to see how Trump plays his hands. Read more
Comment Commented Jose araujo
There is no potential gain, what are you speaking about, this isn't some fight in the school where you can bully your way.
Just the expectation alone from such a idiotic strategy would cause major losses
Read more
Comment Commented Enrique Woll Battistini
NOW: Sign the petition: Pass @SenWarren's bill forcing Trump to sell off his conflicts of interest.
My opinion:
SHORT RECIPE FOR SOLVING TRUMP´S CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
1) All his holdings contributed to a new U.S. Mutual Fund, and all its shares issued to him.
2) All his shares in the U.S. Mutual Fund sold on the NYSE and the cash thus obtained placed in a Blind Trust in his name.
3) All the cash in his Blind Trust immediately invested and continuosly reinvested in U.S. Treasury bonds, including cash obtained from coupon interest earned from such bonds and cash obtained on bond maturities and bond calls.
4) The Blind Trust could be liquidated only after the ensuing presidential term has ended, unless he were reelected for a consecutive term, in which case, again, liquidation could occur only after the ensuing presidential term has ended. Read more
Comment Commented Elizabeth Pula
A fundamental problem has been the labelling of anything that is "humane" as "leftist, entitlement and socialist". There are a lot of guilty parties who have accepted and done the labeling. The next generations is going to fight out the real losses that they will truly suffer. Read more
Comment Commented M M
Forget Trump...it is too soon to judge. One must blame the incumbent, the Clintons and the Democratic Party machine for the failures of the last 8'years and not the Russians or the UFOs'. In any event, it appears that the democrats in the Electoral College are abandoning ship, like it happened with the labor party after the Brexit referendum. Utter disgrace. Read more
Comment Commented M M
Jose, yesterday Obama scored 1-0 in the UN against the sabotageurs of US elections. At long last, he managed to take some action, albeit by abstaining... Read more
Comment Commented M M
Jose, I blame him at being such lousy golf player among a whole list of things, which by the way he himself had admitted. Read more
Comment Commented Jose araujo
And now that reality is sinking in, what are you going to blame Obama for? Read more
Comment Commented Steve Hurst
China is reaching for robots in manufacturing to contain costs which will remain lower than the USA. Unfortunately Trump is not an answer, but then probably no POTUS is likely to be. The same problem is resident elsewhere in the West. Developing countries can kiss goodbye to globalisation as the trick to hitch a ride with. Trump is an effect not a cause Read more
Comment Commented Mauricio Duran-Loriga
Couldn't agree more. Read more
Comment Commented jagjeet sinha
THE ETERNAL ABODE OF ENLIGHTENMENT
In encompassing a larger domain for Public Infrastructure Assets - beyond Schools and Hospitals - Trump redefines The Trinity.
Transportation Telecommunications Power Utilities Housing Urbanization Defense Research Alternative-Energy Aeronautics.
Fiscal departures that complements Monetary Myopia if Central Bank Governors - is a Presidential prerogative.
The Anglosphere was created when Public Infrastructure Assets became The Beacon that enlightened.
The Sangha and The Church historically in Asia and Europe built Schools and Hospitals.
China understood The Mind behind The Trinity - and enlarged the domain of Public Infrastructure Assets.
Schools and Hospitals enabled Asia and Europe to underwrite Enlightenment.
Asset Prices - incorrectly guided Governors - are a result of Real Economics.
The primary atom is Public Infrastructure Assets - not Asset Prices.
America became The World's Economic Epicentre - for a reason.
Trump perhaps The Truth - that comprehended The Mind behind The Trinity.
Trump perhaps The Truth - that guarantees the greatness of The Anglosphere.
Trump perhaps The Truth - that Democracy was designed to deliver.
The City-on-the-Hill is The Eternal Abode of Enlightenment. Read more
Comment Commented Mirek Fatyga
US has just embarked on the road to becoming Argentina. Its ok, all good things come to an end eventually.
Everyone is so worried about trade wars, but perhaps we should all worry about real wars?
Dick Cheney, I heard, is becoming a new Trump surrogate. John Bolton has been seen hanging around, not to mention one Gen Flynn Facts. Bomb, bomb Iran anyone? Clash of civilizations? A maniacal settler dude in the US embassy in Jerusalem?
The standard staple of the Republican party has always been (at least for the last 30 years): cut taxes (for the rich), increase (already bloated) defense spending, and start a few wars. Why should this time around be any different? Read more
Comment Commented Jeff Rutledge
"“cutting the fat” in government has left little to cut". According to the IRS, 8 out of the top 10 counties in the US surround DC. That means a tax dollar withheld from a minimum wage worker in Nebraska finds its way into the bank account of a 1%er. If the cat can't be cut, then at least stop the skim of the tax revenue. Read more
Comment Commented Stephen Morris
"The only way Trump will square his promises of higher . . . spending with large tax cuts and deficit reduction is a heavy dose of . . . voodoo economics. " Not at all. There IS another way. It has been done in several places including my own country of Australia.
Spending will be financed not by selling bonds, but rather by selling public assets. That is, it will be financed by the privatisation of strategic monopolies, essential services, critical databases, and public land and forests, and by the creation of private "tax farms" over new taxes such as road tolls.
Taking a longer perspective, this is all part of the process which might loosely be called "refeudalisation": the winding back of the ideals of the Modern Era.
Piketty has already shown us that in terms of wealth concentration, the 20th century - The Century of the Common Man and Woman - was an anomaly.
But is is not only in wealth concentration that we are being refeudalised. ALL the Ideals of the Modern Era are being steadily eroded: egalitarianism, democratisation, national self-determination:
- privilege is being entrenched once more
- the system of purely "elective" government (it was never really Democracy) has been prostituted by campaign bribery and the system of jobs-for-the-boys for retiring politicians. (In the US this has occurred with the active encouragement of the US Supreme Court no less!)
- national self-determination is falling before the rise of neo-empires like the EU and the so-called "free-trade" agreements (which are really just a pretext to transfer decisions into the hands of Elite interests).
Trump is not the anomaly. The Modern Era was the anomaly.
Read more
Comment Commented Jose araujo
The PPP's era in Europe, where supply was privatized and demand nationalized.
The end-game for conservatives has allways been Corporate Statism, not free efficient markets. Read more
Comment Commented Thu Nghiem
What you said are so true. I witnessed that privatization in Australia during the Howard government from 2006 to 2010. I would add to that the weakening of labor unions. When I arrived in Canada after 2010 I found a system like that is already well under way.
I hope Australians learn from Canada's experience, on what it does to the middle class, well enough to stop it.
But I can guarantee you that, unlike Australia, there is hardly any public assests left here to sell.
Read more
Comment Commented Mauricio Duran-Loriga
Bad news for vintage leftists, indeed. These guys have all been infected by a legendary resilient bacteria, the "tax-the-rich-phylus".
In 2008 there was big talk about the moral hazard of rescuing big banks and allowing the banksters to keep up with their good lives outside prison camps.
What about the moral hazard of these Stiglitz, Piketty, et al, who utterly advocate for an overextended gargantuan welfare state, but who have absolutely no clue how to pay for it, except by taxing the rich? Why are these people not tried in court ? It is as revolting.
What about the moral hazard of endlessly punishing the successful people in order to reward the unsuccessful lazy crowd with a perpetual free lunch?
If a given society can not produce enough goods in a sustainable manner as to cover its member's vital needs, maybe it's time to limit the unsustainable production of human beings.
For the folly to be complete, these vintage leftists insist time and again that any amount of human necessity can be paid for in full by printing currency into oblivion. Nobel prizes... Read more
Comment Commented Mauricio Duran-Loriga
@ Jose
Thank you for your elaborated comments. At the personal level, I am probably the one and only European that from day one of Trump campaign I sided with him, and declared it openly. Now that he has won the election, beyond my personal sympathy, I want his policies (to be) to deliver.
I totally oppose taxing wealth, whatever the size. One of the most fascinating promises in the first Obama election 2008 was that the guy was going to check the budget line by line to get rid of overspending. Bullocks. The day they deliver, half the establishment go on food stamps, while the common man would see tax bill nicely reduced.
Adam Smith ? I hope he can't read this blog. The monetary system now and then are as similar as day and night.
Within the current monetary system, there is only one single occasion where idle wealth is counterproductive to economy. And this occasion is when the short term deposit rate at the central bank is negative.
Because with positive rates, there is no such thing as idle wealth, no such thing as money on the sidelines. Again, those who claim money on the sidelines exists, simply are talking about a monetary system outside planet earth.
Imagine a billionaire who has 10bn in his checking account at a commercial bank. CNBC, Bloomberg and Reuters would call this idle wealth or money on the sidelines. Wrong. Because the bank, the minute after it receives the 10 bn and credits it in the customer's checking account, starts automatically investing it (lending, repo, et al). All funds are invested permanently.
When your ETF of choice says they are 5% in cash, there is no idle wealth there. Because its depositor bank is investing the "idle" funds for its own benefit until the ETF claims the "idle" cash to "invest" in a new asset.
I agree with you that the amount of people who understand how the dollar system works is about minuscule. But as far as it looks today, Trump is among them.
By going into a spending binge, he forces foreign central banks to rebalance to the upside the amount of reserve currency (dollars) held in their books. That creates a dollar shortage on a global scale. It is a if the world was short gamma on dollars and had to run for cover and buy them at the cash market at any price. And the more the dollar is up, the greater amount they have to buy.
Who cares deficit? This sentence is only good if you are the issuer or reserve currency. In the history of reserve currencies, no deficit has ever been repaid. Ever. By its own functioning, reserve currencies are conceived as perpetual debt expanding universes, and when the music stops, the reserve currency loses its privileged status and the issuing country defaults on all its debts. And a different reserve currency is selected as the new global "safe" method of payment.
As long as ANY reserve currency is a liability of the issuer and a claim on the bearer at the same time, the system will keep booming and busting.
About border tax and the negation of free trade. Well of course! Any country has the right to sabotage the competitive advantages of its competitors. I believe WTO has gone way too far in strangling innovation, transformation and competition.
Trump looks like the ONE outsider. However, his team is full of sacred cows from the establishment. Let's see what happens... Read more
Comment Commented Jose araujo
Mauricio, first an explanation on the tax-the-rich importance, not only because 65 families own more than 3,5 billion people (and that alone would be a good excuse) but because the true loss in our society is idle wealth.
Non productive wealth and rentiers has been at the core of economics since its birth, and has been identified has a major problem by all scientific currents, from Adam Smith to Paretto, etc
Now your views on Trump are clearly personal, because it would be a major flip for conservatives, after 10 years of debt hawking to come in and say debt doesn't matter because the dollar is the major currency and all countries will have to buy US debt..
Like you say, it only takes a basic knowledge of the monetary system to know that debt isn’t such a big issue on today’s conditions, but guess what, most if not all of Conservative advisors, including Trump’s advisors seem to have no knowledge at all on how the financial and monetary system work.
Finally on the border tax, and your take that it’s the main culprit on the dollar and the Russell 2000 flying high, it’s very soon to make what is happening, but if that’s what really happening, than it’s the negation of free-trade and what being a conservative standed for a long time.
Read more
Comment Commented Mauricio Duran-Loriga
Steve,
Thank you for your elaborated input. I agree that not all rich are virtuous and also not all needy are undeserving. But I am sick and tired to read this mono-neuronal tax-the-rich-phylus leftists always flagging the same good old idea;
High unemployment = tax the rich
Bad weather = tax the rich
Brazil losing world cup = tax the rich
Adding luck to inheritance to merit to seizing the opportunity is not 10 + 10 + 10 +10 = 40, but more likely 10 x 100 x 1000 x 10000 = 10.000.000.000 There are your billions.
I do not think outright grabbing of other people's qualities and assets makes society any fairer.
I suggest you have a look at the extraordinary proposals of Swiss financier Felix Bolliger for a total overhaul of taxation systems. To cut to the chase, it would amount to suppress all current taxes (income, corporate, VAT, tariffs et al) and approve a financial tax on all electronic transactions. Rated at a miserable 0.2% that would provide a yearly income for the state of 32% of GDP.
But reach on to the redistributive scope of that tax.
A clerk will be taxed 0.2 % on receiving his salary, and another (all items included) 0.2% and he buys goods. Total taxation 0.4% !
The billionaires would pay big. As it is a pay as you go tax, the more they trade their billions for shares, the more they are taxed for the whole lot.
That is way much fairer than any current system worldwide, and extraordinary as a means of de-taxing the needy and also of over-taxing the billionaires, but on pay as you go option.
Read more
Comment Commented Mauricio Duran-Loriga
Curtis,
Not only you declare yourself a staunch anti-Trump militant, you also make clear that wealth and you are not made for each other, and the worst of all, you have not the slightest idea how the US monetary system works. Literally. No irony this late tonight my friend.
As of today Trump has not taken office, so probably it would be wiser wait to see what he delivers as President.
Have you heard of the Trump-Ryan proposal of a border tax? I suppose the toilet paper you read is devoid of contents. The most important part of my question is not "border tax", but "Trump-Ryan". Because if these two dance together, it's rock'n'roll my friend. You go google. IF they pass that specific legislation it would be the greatest tax revolution in this generation.
That is the reason why the dollar is flying high, that is the reason why the Russell 2000 is flying higher than big caps, that is the reason why everyone is betting on accelerating inflation, and that is why China is starting to panic by the day.
About debt and infrastructure financing. Reagan understood how the US monetary system worked.
Bretton Woods declared the US dollar both the world reserve currency and the intermediary between any other currency and gold.
Once Nixon declared the dollar as an irredeamable currency, the central banks of the world were forced literally to buy gargantuan amounts of dollars and keep them as reserves in their balance sheets, as a worldwide accepted means of payment in any circumstance. Once they bought the US currency, the central banks exchange this currency dollars for debt issued by the US treasury. There lies the privilege of the US irredeamable currency. That it forces the rest of the world to buy its currency and its debt instruments as if they were sound money (as gold once was).
Buying the US debt for such purposes has amounted to 2,9 % GDP every year since 1974. Trump knows that and wants to push the pedal on that front. It's not your great grand children who will pay for his planned expenses. It's the rest of the world who will have to load big on dollars (and US Treasury issued debt) to have a decent buffer of reserve currency in their rotten balance sheets.
The difference is that when dollar was redeemable in gold. foreign central banks could buy gold as reserves. And gold is not the liability of any other country.
Irredeamability forces foreign countries to buy and store US currency into another country's liability.
The current reserve currency privilege is that it crowds out foreign (free) savings in exchange for (captive) depreciating debt.
And you are crying like a teenager for your grand children?
Go and get a decent paying job ! Read more
Comment Commented Jose araujo
Elizabeth, basic myth? I don't follow you.
So the have and have nots are a myth? Read more
Comment Commented Elizabeth Pula
KUDOS to Steven Morris- the basic myth of right and left, the have's and have not's. Polarity just does not create a very balanced view, solutions, nor conclusions.... Read more
Comment Commented Stephen Morris
This is a fairly conventional application of the "Myth of the Virtuous Rich" and the "Myth of the Undeserving Poor".
But let's look at those myths for a moment. Not by contrasting rich and poor, but contrasting rich and EXTREMELY rich. That is, by contrasting "ordinary" millionaires with billionaires.
If our common-or-garden millionaire is working a 70 hour week, are we to believe that our billionaire is working a 70,000 hour week?
If our quotodian millionaire is working 50 weeks a year, are we to believe that our billionaire is working 50,000 weeks a year?
Perhaps they're more intelligent.
If our mundane millionaire has an IQ of 145, are we to believe that our billionaire has an IQ of 145,000?
Maybe they're more educated.
If our commonplace millionaire has worked for 2 university degrees, are we to believe that our billionaire has worked for 2,000?
There is simply no metric that can come close to explaining the differences between the two. It is not a difference of degree. It is an orders of magnitude difference.
There are, however, four things that are VERY strongly correlated with vast wealth. They are:
a) exploitation of market power. Competitive markets yield normal returns. Vast wealth inevitably involves market failure of some kind;
b) political corruption. One of the best ways to enjoy market failure is to have a Mate in government intervene in the market: to grant a contract without competitive tender, to protect one's industry by carefully designed regulation, to bail you out with taxpayers' money if things do go bad;
c) inheritance. Choosing one's parents is the fastest way to wealth; and
d) good luck. This might be the good luck of being born wealthy. It might be the good luck of winning a lottery. But often it is the good luck of "first-mover" advantage. Of several possible contenders, one product or firm will - by chance - come to dominate the market and make super-profits.
Now, one might try to argue that it's necessary to offer the prospect of huge wealth to a lucky few in order to encourage others. But in fact behavioural economics suggests exactly the opposite is true.
Decades of work suggest that human beings are systematically over-optimistic in that they overestimate such long-tail rewards. That's why lotteries are so popular.
Offering vast quasi-random winning pots does not promote allocative efficiency in the economy. It does the opposite. It creates a "gold rush" mentality which directs too much capital at prospects which are seen as the latest fad.
If one really wanted to promote allocative efficiency, it would be better to tax economic rent and re-distribute the proceeds to boost demand in aggregate.
As an second-best alternative, it would be better to tax the capitalised value of future economic rents (i.e. tax wealth) and use the proceeds to do the same. (This is what the Swiss cantons do, keeping transactional taxes low in the process.)
Of course, such policies would require (as in Switzerland) a genuinely democratic system of government.
The corrupt system of "elective" government (or "government-by-politician") which operates in most countries is all but guaranteed to make things worse. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
What has Trump pledged to do about taxes? Why, lower them for corporations and the wealthy who own the majority shares in them of course!
What has Trump done to limit the damage that the TBTF banks and their "bankster" executives can do? Why, appointed some of the worst of them to his cabinet and promised to undertake massive new borrowing from the rest. Pure genius!
How does Trump plan to pay for his infrastructure projects? By that very borrowing! And handing the debt over to your children to repay, following the tried-and-true Reagan formula!
And so on. One can only wonder if people like Maurico Duran-Loriga here can enjoy the irony. I'm sure Trump does.
Read more
Comment Commented Jan Czaja
We wouldn't be even contemplating this travel if the current system would work for middle 60%...but its not. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
Somehow appropriate that Peter here is focused on the toilet. Read more
Comment Commented Peter Schaeffer
CC, Your Klanidate (Hillary) was very clear that America's biggest problem was bathrooms, not jobs. Somehow, bathrooms aren't the biggest problem the middle-class faces in the U.S. Hillary went all in for bathrooms, BLM, the TPP, and Goldman Sachs. She blew off the middle-class and working people. This time it didn't work. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
Very few in my circle would argue that the American system is broken and in need of repair Jan. Where we differ is in the notion that Donald Trump can make those repairs -- or even cares to. The "grab them by the pussy" man is your guy -- enjoy him while you can. Read more
Comment Commented John Landrum
Another leftist hit job. Smear, disinformation, animus and absurdity all rolled up into "economic analysis". Nice con job, Joe. Where to begin - "Nazi Germany's big lie propogandists"; "extreme policies"; "voodoo economics" as contrasted by Obamanomics which generated an average GDP growth of 1.50% for 8 years; "cozies up to Russian President Vladimir Putin"; keeping 800 jobs in the US is somehow a "bad deal"; "tax avoidance" is now bad?; "dynastic plutocracy". Why leave out "racism"; misogyny; homophobia; war-mongering; Facism - all the descriptive tools of the left? You are slipping, Joe. Read more
Comment Commented Donald Humphreys
John Landrum: vacuous quotester---select words taken out of context signifying nothing. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
Bismark famously said "'fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." It appears that a great many Americans have chosen to travel that first road, and I leave you to draw what conclusions you wish from that. It is somewhat irksome though, that the rest of us will be obliged to help those people -- and the new head fool -- carry their baggage. Read more
Comment Commented Elizabeth Pula
Most don't realize that they are only "the average worker". Most citizens have been the average worker for more than one generation. Their children won't even have the opportunity to be an average worker. Their grandchildren will be lucky to survive to age 50. Ah, America is so great!, again! Read more
Comment Commented Peter Schaeffer
CC, Hillary was always very clear about bathrooms being much (much) more important than jobs. She was probably being sincere as well. Her class doesn't worry much about jobs, but is obsessed with the latest SJW cause (bathrooms in this case). For Hillary, bathrooms were were truly important because the modern Democratic party utterly depends on identity politics as a cloak for its highly regressive neoliberalism. If you are taking, $250K from Goldman Sachs for a 20 minute speech (is that a bribe, payment, or campaign contribution?) you need something to keep all of the lefty sheep in line. Bathrooms (and BLM) were perfect. See "The Daily 202: Rust Belt Dems broke for Trump because they thought Clinton cared more about bathrooms than jobs" in the WaPo for an article on the subject. Read more
Comment Commented Jan Czaja
What did I miss Curtis...transgender bathrooms for all? She ran on identity politics, the good, "enlightened", "progressive" Democrats vs. stupid, "basket of deplorables", conservative Republicans. Average person could care less about that garbage as long as he or she has a decent job that pays the bills. That's the problem with so called "party of the People"...it no longer represents the average worker. The sooner loons like you figure it out, the better. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
Yes, it seems you missed a number of things, whether they were motivated by Bernie Sanders or not. Unlike Trump, for example, she did not propose that the U.S. military be turned into the muscle behind a U.S. protection racket. And one could go on in other areas of U.S. geopolitical and economic interests.
Trump is genuinely dangerous, as is the entire swing to the right generally. Being "a fan" of his, or not, is a tragically inadequate response to that -- unless you have no real stake in the matter. Read more
Comment Commented Jan Czaja
Can the man at least get into the office first before we start writing post mortems? Trust me, I'm not a fan of him but Clinton's election would mean 4 more years of the same i.e. no wage growth or limited wage growth for middle and working classes and 4 more fat years for Internationalist elite in New York and Silicon Valley. Is he going to deliver on half of the stuff he promised, I doubt it but then again, the old recipes that Obama prescribed and Clinton would continue are not working out for middle 60%. This economy needs to start benefiting middle 60%. Time for something different and hopefully it's not the same stuff that failed the last time around. Read more
Comment Commented Peter Schaeffer
JC is correct. Hillary was very clear about what "four more years" meant. More failed wars (she was behind the Libya debacle). More failed trade deals (she was obviously a hard-core TPP/TTIP advocate). More outsourcing/offshoring (she called herself "The Senator from Punjab'). More racial hatred (she had the mothers of BLM on stage with her). More welfare. More Wall Street supremacy (how much did she take from Goldman?). Hillary was a combination of evil rarely seen in the world. At least for once, evil lost. Read more
Comment Commented Jan Czaja
Curtis,
Unless I missed something during the election campaign, Clinton did not propose anything radically different than what the outgoing administration's economic plan was. Even when she did alternate from this plan, it was because of Bernie Sanders's popularity and of his economic plans rather then her own choice.
In regards to your second comment, you're right, something different can mean worse, and that's the reason I said before that I'm not a fun of this guy because I could see how rapidly things would deteriorate. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
How is it OK to speculate on what Clinton might have done had she been elected, but somehow inappropriate to try and anticipate what Trump will do now that he has?
"Time for something different" seems to foolishly assume that "different" can't be something a good deal worse. And from what we can take away from Trump's unseemly campaign and government-by-tweet so far, the probabilities seem to be weighted pretty heavily toward the "worse" column.
As you say though, we'll see. Read more
Comment Commented Peter Schaeffer
The problem with Stiglitz is that he can't keep his story straight. This time we are told
"Trump will take charge of an economy on a strongly upward trend, with third-quarter GDP growing at an impressive annual rate of 3.2% and unemployment at 4.6% in November."
So everything is great, right? Not exactly.
"But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. "
and
"Donald Trump’s astonishing victory in the United States presidential election has made one thing abundantly clear: too many Americans – particularly white male Americans – feel left behind. It is not just a feeling; many Americans really have been left behind. It can be seen in the data no less clearly than in their anger. And, as I have argued repeatedly, an economic system that doesn’t “deliver” for large parts of the population is a failed economic system."
So is everything great or terrible? Enquiring minds want to know. Read more
Comment Commented Adrian Garcia
There is nothing contradictory in what you are citing.
On one side he says that recent trends on GDP and inflation are good, on the other that the overall well being of many americans is worse today than it was decades ago. Read more
Comment Commented Thu Nghiem
In the first paragraph you cited, he compares the current situation with the post 2008 crisis one.
In th second paragraph, he put it in a long-term trend of job and salary stagnation.
Read more
Comment Commented Peter Schaeffer
Trump has promised to remove illegals from the USA, not stop all trade with Mexico. Deporting illegals will create jobs for Americans. Stopping factories from moving to Mexico will save jobs for Americans. Trump marks the end of "ship all jobs abroad and replace all Americans with illegals" globalization that PS has consistently advocates. How much American workers will benefit isn't clear. The cosmopolitan elite have spent 30+ years wrecking America. It won't be fixed in 4. Read more
Comment Commented John Reuter, Esq. (Ret.)
For the past several weeks now, Project Syndicate seems to have gleefully, even enthusiastically embraced the left, the so-called "fake news" phenomenon. Unfortunately, from here on out, I won't expect the good professor and Nobel Prize recipient to offer anything useful in the way of advancing American's economic interests. Thankfully, Professor Stiglitz did not get his ardent wish, that is, the ascension of Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office. Fortunately, the professor was wrong on this point, and I expect that his opinions will become increasingly suspect if not outright wrong. Project Syndicate no longer appears to be offering a balanced menu of varying academic viewpoints, but rather a full plate of the same old bland mash potatoes I can find at any anxious hand-wringing left-wing website. I'll hang on for a couple of more weeks before I drop off. Read more
Comment Commented Ga Steli
@ Forrest Hensley & John Reuter.
Actually, Michael J. Boskin, Dec 13; Mohamed A. El-Erian, Dec 19; Andrew Sheng & Xiao Geng, Dec 19; all present articles that can be described as sympathetic to Mr. Trump. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
Why wait? Read more
Comment Commented Forrest Henslee
I've had the exact same thought since the election. There has been little, if not zero, insightful opinions posted here in the last month. Read more
Comment Commented dan baur
1. If Obama "inherited" a bad economy, then his job was easy, not hard ...and he still failed.
2. Trump is not "like Bush" - to the contrary, the Bushes voted with the Crooked Clinton
3. Clinton did not "win" any popular vote. She bought a lot of votes with money from the oligarchy, but failed to buy the elections despite a very dirty war.
4. You don't understand Trump. Period. He is not, and does not think like a professor so don't even try as the result is pure comedy.
Read more
Comment Commented dan baur
I understand you too, poor simpleton Jose.
That's precious: trying to evaluate Trump. Read more
Comment Commented Jose araujo
So off course you understand Idiots like Trump... Read more
Comment Commented Jerry F. Hough
The uncertainties are enormous.
A month ago the liberals were hysterical that Bannon was the chief strategist. Read his interview in Hollywood Reporter. A mad-dog anti-elite egalitarian who is far more egalitarian than Stiglitz. Will he have no influence?
They pretended to be hysterical about Sessions's racism because Trump said he is going to unite white and minority middle and lower income, and the New Democrats are afraid that their evil coalition of Westchester and Harlem that benefits only Westchester--their policy of divide and conquer lower and middle income--is under attack, and they think they must go even further in playing the racism card to hold it together.
But Sessions' racism is a half century in the past. His issue, intensely held, is immigration reform. Wages are killed by an infinite supply of labor produced by immigration and outsourcing. Trump has forgotten this immigration issue as he thinks of 2020??? His tax lawyers don't know how to decrease the incentives of outsourcing??? The man is not an idiot. He won an electiion against all odds and expectations. Surely he doesn't want to be Bill Clinton in 2018.
And above all Trump says he is a man of the deal. He told the NY Times he advances extreme positions as bargaining chips. Trump does not have 60 Senators.
Stiglitz used to write about the economic consequences of Iraq. Trump does seem to have a policy of allying with Russia to get us out of regime change in the Middle East. Now Stiglitz seems close to the McCarthyism on Putin and dictators like Sadaam whom Stiglitz said should not be overthrown.
Is Stiglitz really terrified of the New Democrats? Carter and Bill were the great de-regulators. Reagan had a great Keynesian tax policy in an age of inflation and non-indexed
brackets. It was a great Keynesian policy that would have produced a surplus by 1985 as the economy boomed. The New Democrats increased the taxes and ended the indexing, and it became Voodoo economics. When Bush introduced an excessive tax cut, the Democrats voted to increase to it, but Bush used his majority to cut it back to what he wanted. 80% of the Democrats voted against prescription drugs.
The Trump program Stiglitz describes is good for Westchester. The Trump team has the same conflicts of interests and biases of this Citigroup Administration. The current Sect of Treasury was head of the riskiest investments in Citi; the current Undersecretary for Foreign Economics was head of the foreign currency dept. of Citi. They wanted and got a tripling of the market based on flat wages for the bottom 90%. So did Westchester and Marin.
So the Hillary-Krugman-Westchester-Marin crowd naturally say Trump is so bad for everything that he must be denied any success so he will not be re-elected. They are saying don't use the 48 Senators to make deals that are good for the middle and lower income and quietly let Trump follow a pro-Westchester policy we can blame on him.
And now Stiglitz is playing that game!! It is time for him and the Sanders-Warren wing to start thinking--what can we achieve for the middle income? How can we use Trump to move the Democrats back in a New Deal direction? We elect Presidents for 8 years. He will fire people and change policy to win in 2020. Workers cannot wait another 8 years.
The Stiglitz-Warren-Sanders wing can accomplish more in deals with Trump than they could with Clinton. That is what they should be thinking about. Read more
Comment Commented Jose araujo
Bannon an anti-elite egalitarian... You are kidding right, either that or you don't know what an egalitarian is. Read more
Comment Commented Armin Schmidt
From my POV team Trump got something fundamental very right: a global trend shift from moral idealism towards subgroup liberation. But this trend has a very dangerous property, which gives a major reason why it is widely rejected. Mutually ignorant and damaging subgroup liberation reinforces each other and spirals down.
A rule-of-thumb to take care of this dangerous part of the trend: "Responsible subgroup liberation demands fairness and mutual compensation."
I think, that heeding this advice could turn the situation into an opportunity, because in regard to the historical track record of subgroup liberation people might have low expectations and will rather soon return to forwarding moral idealism.
There is more theory about this in my account's bio. Read more
Comment Commented Armin Schmidt
At "soon" I think of years or a decade. Read more
Comment Commented Marc Laventurier
First, the professional economics organizations should hire two types of consultants: one involving organizational psychologists who have been laughing at them for years as economists grope their way past pure decision theory towards the thin but empirical descriptions provided by behavioural economics, the second political psycho-demographers or whatever they call themselves, the types who serve the evil doers who are out simply exploit the american peasantry through psychological manipulation. (See Trump run. Run Trump run!)
So reoriented, economists will learn that they collectively really only believe in one thing, a narrow and likely obsolete concept, "growth", and that they will quite consciously allow 'the market' to hide absurdities until debt is too high, when they will simply suspend the rules 'to save the system'. So what is this ambient ethic, both for economists and the half of the population with a two-digit IQ? I don't know what to call it. Some entirely new institution is needed to provide humanity with the substrate to evolve beyond 'the market' and 'the bucket'. Joe and other good people should get a DMT booster shot, or something, anything. Read more
Comment Commented Andrew (Andy) Crow
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too Mr Stiglitz. I'd like to think your analysis is wrong.....but......
Read more
Comment Commented Michael Public
I feel ill. The naive part of me was hoping Trump was on to something and that it was just hard to understand, but I can't argue with the logic here, which means decline for America swiftly followed by referred pain for everyone else. I would like to know if professor Stiglitz believes Sanders policies would have helped Trumps supporters. Read more
Featured
The Year That Ended an Epoch?
Javier Solana revisits the tumultuous international events of 2016, and surveys the uncertain landscape ahead.
The International Barriers to Trump’s Economic Plan
Mohamed A. El-Erian emphasizes the need for international policy coordination to accelerate the US recovery.
Trump’s Global Strength
Andrew Sheng & Xiao Geng consider what the world can expect from a US president-elect who has been consistently underestimated.
PS Commentators face the press
PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat
In the latest edition of PS On Air , Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky and Leonardo Maisano of Il Sole 24 Ore.