【書摘】川普4年的美國經濟如何上去的？

摘自：

Inside Trump's White House: The Real Story of His Presidency

Doug Wead, 2019, ISBN: 978-1-5460-8585-0

==

【歐巴馬政府的經濟顧問，以及其他一些經濟學家認為，美國GDP的常態是年增長率不超過2%。但是，川普政府在4年裡，打破了這個迷思。】

==

235-236】

【邁克·穆爾瓦尼（Mike Mulvaney）於2020 年 5 月 1 日至 2021 年 1 月 6 日任白宮辦公廳主任、管理和預算辦公室主任】

那麼，特朗普團隊是如何實現奧巴馬團隊認為不可能實現的任務的呢？

“我們放鬆了政府的管制【deregulation】。我們從根本上改變了對資本生產的徵稅方式，即創造財富的方式，”邁克·穆爾瓦尼說。 “所以，當我們放鬆這種管制時，這是一個結構性的變化。

“人們說，你們只是利用較低的稅收，就像‘糖高【sugar high】’；或者他們說你們去年增加了支出，那也是一種‘糖高’。

==

【注】：糖高【sugar high】，指人們食用了某些高糖食物後產生的短時期的血糖突然升高的現象。這裡比喻美國經濟短期性的增長。

==

“我說，‘好吧，這兩件事是真的。但放鬆政府管制是一種結構性的變化，它每年都會帶來好處。如果現在開辦企業更容易，那麼你現在開辦企業也會更容易。對我來說，明年也會更容易開展業務。這是一種結構性的變化。如果我們採取刺激措施，那只是一次性的事情。但放鬆管制是使得經濟不斷增長的禮物。”

啊，但是等等。民主黨人說你們正在擺脫所需要的法規。你怎麼回答？

穆爾瓦尼以“美國水域【waters of the US】”規則和企業平均燃油經濟性 (Corporate Average Fuel Economy，CAFE) 標準的兩個例子來說：“實際上有數以千計的舊法規從未被清除，還有其他的法規急需澄清。” 

你們是怎麼做到【放鬆管制】的？我【作者 Doug Wead】問。

“通過允許他們享受稅收的優惠來投資自己的企業。如果你對你的企業進行資本投資，你可以立即扣除這筆投資。

“減稅做了些什麼？減稅做了幾件事。首先，它大大提高了生產力。

“看，GDP 是一個數學方程式，你可以把它與許多不同的因素聯繫起來。實現 GDP 的方法之一是工作的人數乘以每個人的產出。好吧，那就是國內生產總值【GDP】。人們在生產。

“在這個等式中有兩個因素：工作的人數和他們的個人產出。現在，我們取得了一些成功。人們認為我們在工作人數方面無法取得進展。我們的批評者說，'哦，美國人口正在老化【is graying】，而你們這些可怕的川普人永遠不會增加足夠的移民，所以你們永遠無法增加工作人數。我們通過鼓勵人們回到在歐巴馬政府時期放棄的工作場所來做到這點。

“然後我們專注於民主黨從未想過的其他事情。我們再次提高了生產力。他們認為那些日子已經過去了。我們說不。如果我們能讓企業進行資本的投資，那麼人們的生產力就會更高。

“這確實是我們所看到的。生產力提高了。例如，我們鼓勵企業購買新的更好的機器。隨之而來的是生產力的提高，人們的產出增加了。

“GDP上升了。不僅GDP上升了，經濟也增長了。這是在我們認為是供給側增長的情況下完成的，這就是我們沒有發生任何通貨膨脹的原因。

“請記住，你和我的年齡足以記住什麼是通貨膨脹。它被鬆散地定義為‘太多的錢追逐太少的商品’。在華盛頓的4年裡，民主黨人和其他凱恩斯主義者會想，'每次經濟升溫時，我們有通貨膨脹的風險。人們把更多的錢帶回家。對商品的需求將會增加。這就是通貨膨脹。“

“那你怎麼解決？你生產了更多的商品。

“回到我們創建的系統，它鼓勵資本投資，鼓勵生產力，並鼓勵商品的產出。你沒有通貨膨脹。你沒有太多的錢去追逐太少的商品。更多的商品可以抑制通貨膨脹。這就是人們自[有影響力的美國經濟學家]米爾頓·弗里德曼【Milton Friedman】和亞瑟·拉弗【Arthur Laffer】以來一直在談論的供給側現象。

“你知道，很久以前，在 80 年代，羅納德·里根 (Ronald Reagan) 作為總統候選人，他們一直在談論供應方面的革命。嗯，我們能夠做到。

“所以，你的生產力提高了，GDP 增加了，工資也增加了，因為工資往往隨着生產力的提高而上漲。我們在沒有通貨膨脹的情況下做到了這一切。”

====

【原文】

235-236】

【Mike Mulvaney was White House Chief of Staff, and director of the Office of Management and Budget, May 1, 2020 – January 6, 2021】

So, how did the Trump team achieve something that the Obama team didn't think was possible?

"We deregulated and we fundamentally changed the way that we tax capital production, the creation of wealth," Mike Mulvaney said. "So, when we deregulated, that was a structural change.

"One of the things people say is that you guys are just using lower taxes like a sugar high【糖高】. Or they'll say you increased spending last year. That's a sugar high.

"I'm like, 'Okay, those two things are true. But deregulating is a structural change; it pays benefits every single year. If it's now easier to open a business, it's going to be easier for you to open your business this year and easier for me to open my business next year. It's a structural change. If we do a stimulus, for example, it's just a one-time thing. But deregulation is the gift that keeps on giving towards growth."

Ah, but wait. Democrats say that you are getting rid of regulations that are needed. How do you answer that?

"There are literally thousands of old regulations that have never been cleared off the books, and others that urgently needed clarification," said Mulvaney, who cited the "waters of the US" rules and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards as examples.

236-238】

How have you done that【deregulation】? I【author Doug Wead】asked.

"By allowing them preferential tax treatment to invest in their own businesses. If you would make a capital investment in your business, you get to immediately deduct that investment.

"What has that done? It's done a couple of things. First of all, it's dramatically increased productivity.

"Look, the GDP is a mathematical equation that you can tie back to many different factors. One of the ways you can deliver GDP is the number of people working times their individual output. Okay, that is the gross domestic product. They produce. 

"There are two factors in that equation, the number of people working, and their personal output. Now, we have had some success that people didn't think we could have in term of the number of people working. Our critics said, 'Oh, the country is graying【人口老化】and you terrible Trump people are never going to increase immigration enough, so you're never going to be able to increase the number of people working.' We did it by encouraging people to come back to the workplace who had given up under the Obama administration.

"Then we focused on something else that Democrats never thought possible. We increased productivity again. They thought that those days were behind us. We said no. If we can get businesses to invest in capital, then people are more productive.

"That's indeed what we see. Productivity has gone up. For example, we gave business an incentive to buy new and better pieces of machinery. What followed was more productivity, more output for that person.

"The GDP goes up. But not only is GDP going up, the economy is growing. It's done so in what we consider to be a supply-sided growth, which is why we don't have any inflation.

"Keep in mind, you and I are old enough to remember what inflation is. It is loosely defined as too much money chasing too few goods. In four years in Washington, Democrats and other Keynesians would think, 'Every time the economy heats up, we have the risk of inflation. People are taking home more money. There will be more demand for goods. Inflation.'

“How do you solve that? You made more goods.

"Go back to the system we created, which encouraged capital investment, encouraged productivity, and encouraged the output of things. You don't have inflation. You don't have too much money chasing too few goods. More goods keep inflation at bay. That is the supply-side phenomenon that people have been talking about since [the influential American economists] Milton Friedman and Arthur Laffer.

"You know, a long time ago, back in the eighties, with Ronald Reagan as a candidate, it was the supply-side revolution that they kept talking about. Well, we were able to do it.

"So, you've got an increase in productivity, an increase in GDP, and an increase in wages, because wages tend to go up as productivity goes up. We've done all of that without inflation."