Trump's Economic Fraud
In reality, the president has a limited impact on growth.


A big part of Donald Trump's appeal is the unsatisfactory performance of the U.S. economy and the promise that he could turn it around. He's a successful businessman, his supporters say. He'd restore manufacturing jobs by getting tough with China and Mexico, they claim. He'd make America great again.
They got these unfounded ideas from listening to Trump. In an economic speech in Detroit last month, he said he would "jump-start America," which he insisted "won't even be that hard." On Thursday, Trump fantasized that his policies would create 25 million jobs over the next decade.
"There is no limit to the number of jobs we can create and the amount of prosperity we can unleash," he proclaimed, giving himself capacities that reach infinity.
But Trump is about as likely to create an economic boom as he is to shave his head. The stark truth is that while presidents get a great deal of blame and credit for the productive sector, they don't have much control over it.
"When you tote up even the wildest promises of the current campaigns, it doesn't make much of a difference to the economy as a whole," says economist John Cochrane of the free market Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the conservative American Action Forum told the Los Angeles Times Trump is "over-counting what he could get."
The economy is subject to all sorts of unpredictable factors that can overwhelm the most determined efforts of the person in the Oval Office. Growth in China, oil production in Saudi Arabia, Britain's withdrawal from the European Union—any of these can have ripple effects in this country.
Demographic changes here at home also play a role. Unforeseen events—terrorism, natural disasters, war, financial crises—can upend expectations overnight.
No one has more direct influence on the economy than Janet Yellen and her fellow Federal Reserve governors. As they and we have learned to our sorrow since 2008, though, even they often find themselves pulling levers that don't seem to be connected to anything.
For years, the Fed has been using low interest rates and expansionary monetary policy to goose growth. And for years, growth has lagged. One thing the Fed was always able to do before was unleash inflation. Lately, it's been unable even to get the annual rate up to the 2 percent it regards as optimal.
If the world's most important central bank is so ineffectual, how potent can a president be? Presidents, after all, face far more constraints than the Fed. Major policy changes often require legislation, which requires compromise with Congress. They don't control either spending or revenues, which are likewise subject to the approval of lawmakers.
Those flows of cash are susceptible not only to legislation but also to the ups and downs of the economy—which can raise or lower the incoming amount and outgoing obligations with no action by the people in power.
When expenditures surged and receipts shrank in 2008, it wasn't because President George W. Bush decided it would be a great idea to nearly triple the federal deficit. It was because the economy had plunged into a severe recession that he never sought.
The weak growth under Barack Obama occurred even though he got Congress to approve a big stimulus package. Had that program worked as intended, we'd all have spent the past seven years wondering how to spend all the money raining down on us. But Obama has found that unlocking strong growth can be like cracking a safe.
Trump's promise to create a net total of 25 million jobs qualifies as utterly preposterous. The longest peacetime expansion in American history, which occurred under President Bill Clinton, fell short of that feat. And the next president will face headwinds—sluggish growth abroad, an aging population and an immigration slowdown—that Clinton didn't.
The most important economics book of 2016, by Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon, is The Rise and Fall of American Growth. It makes an exhaustive case that the huge improvements in living standards during the 20th century were a unique phenomenon that can't be repeated.
"America is riding on a slow-moving turtle," Gordon contends. "There is little that politicians can do about it."
That view may be too pessimistic. But if Trump becomes president, he will learn that whether he's atop a turtle or a thoroughbred, he can't make it gallop.
© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The weak growth under Barack Obama occurred even though he got Congress to approve a big stimulus package. Had that program worked as intended, we'd all have spent the past seven years wondering how to spend all the money raining down on us. But Obama has found that unlocking strong growth can be like cracking a safe."
The stimulus worked exactly as intended: a massive payoff to the Unions and progressive allies, and a slush fund.
It was never meant to "unlock strong growth", FFS.
Forget it Spinach, it's Chapman town.
Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
------------------>>> http://www.highpay90.com
I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $75h to $86h?Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business... Go this web.... http://goo.gl/Tn2qSr
SCDR;
Of course Hillary's plan is awesome, she's going to putatively tax rich corporations and rich people (only the non-democrats of course) and the economy will catch fire!!
Trump will give us all jobs that we are excited to go to every day.
If you're getting a job from Trump, be prepared for your paycheck to bounce. Trump's "business success" seems to be mostly about just not paying his bills and then negotiating how much of the debt he'll actually pay.
Unlike the treasury that will have our grandkids paying.
komik ngentot So the suspect in ny bombing is an Afghan. That should be worth another point or two for trump.
We're one more coughing fit/fall from a president trump, and I never thought hillary could lose komik xxx
Black Magic Specialist
So the suspect in ny bombing is an Afghan. That should be worth another point or two for trump.
We're one more coughing fit/fall from a president trump, and I never thought hillary could lose
The multiple attacks over the weekend are not the important story, criticizing Trump's economic plan is the important story. Get with the narrative, Trumpkin!
You know what will improve the economy? Importing more goatfuckers and putting them on welfare. Think of all the windows their improvised bombs will break!
Hey, America can't thrive without importing 100,000 "refugees" from the Middle East, this is known!
Well, either that or Trump's dangerous comments in which he called the attack a bombing and wished the victims and their families well.
That was just irresponsible of him! Better to make a mindless statement while zombified on anti-seizure drugs like Hillary.
Thoughts and prayers haven't worked! How about some laws!
/prog
You guys complain about Reason, but right now the top story at Slate is "Pulse and the Power of Queer Tears."
It could be worse.
I can complain about multiple unrelated things at the same time. I'm gifted like that.
Isn't that what makes us libertarians special? We are so skilled we can complain about everything at once.
It can always be worse. When progressives hit rock bottom, they break out the mining equipment.
I am shocked, shocked, that the suspect's name isn't Sven Johansen.
LAT tracking poll has Trump above the margin of error. I think the only way Hillary wins now is if Trump shits the bed in the debates. Which is not impossible. Still, even that may not matter. The turnout numbers from the primaries indicate it is Trump's race if the people who showed up and voted come back in November.
LAT tracking poll has Trump above the margin of error.
But is he above the margin of fraud?
For the past decade or two, my aunt has partaken in the "get out the vote" effort in memory care wards in senior living communities in North Carolina. She "aids" them in filling out their ballots (making sure they check everything with a D next to it) and brags about it. Those people think they are voting for JFK or Eisenhower
The president doesn't have as much control as people want to believe.
As we are well aware. But that doesn't stop candidates from ANY stripe from promising the world, including things that, at the very least, require acts of congress to achieve.
I was trying to get a count of administrative agencies under the president's control, but had no luck. Anyways, the fact that the judicial branch gives deferential treatment to organizations controlled by the president tells you presidents have more control than they should ever had.
"What? You want us to work?" - Supreme Court Justice
"Muh Legacy"
-Roberts
Here is a list. It's more than I'm will to count.
wiki
4 million plus employees. 2.3 trillion dollars. The prez can barely do a thang, baby!
Of course I was speaking to the constitutional authority of the president, not what they will do "because fytw"...
I wasn't critiquing you, your comment just got me to thinking.
I should have read down further, I get your point constitutionally and you're correct. That isn't the case these days though, so I don't get the pants shitting from the author of this piece. It seems...misguided as a critique. It would have resonated more as a piece talking about the overreach of the Executive Branch but I guess that doesn't sell as well as a Trump article.
Plus, they have a pen and a phone now. And are apparently allowed to use them.
And a mail server admin who'll go on Reddit and ask how to scrub the VERY VIP's email from the Exchange database.
http://archive.is/FXcao
The President actually has a whole lot of f'ing control these days if anyone bothers to pay attention. The Alphabet Soup that is the National Regulatory Czar-King's can do a whole lot to stifle the economy, as most people here are more than ready to point out normally.
So what makes this case different? Is this simply a case of TDS gone amok, or are we saying that suddenly the Executive Branch is restrained and powerless after years of complaining about how much power has been amassed by the Executive Branch?
Go and sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
I think the president and the congress have control in the terms of holding it back/suppressing it with bad policies and perverse incentives. However they can't make it good (unless they get out of the way)
GayJay needs to get his shit together if he's going to steal enough Hitlery votes to put Trump in the White House.
He really does want to ramp up the "sounds clueless" vibe he gives off, doesn't he?
Cleanup to the bakery. Cleanup to the bakery.
Special rights, because corn holing other guys is sacred.
He doesn't just sound clueless, he IS clueless.
I hate having people think that he represents what a libertarian is.
"Well, first of all, just grateful that nobody got hurt," Johnson proclaimed on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday."
Wow that's pretty bad. I thought the Aleppo comment was blown out of proportion. However, this comment is truly from someone either clueless or who can't think in front of a camera.
.............. how high are you right now, Mr. Johnson?
That's the melody to Funkytown....
But Trump is about as likely to create an economic boom as he is to shave his head.
So, economic boom if Bobby Lashley loses at Wrestlemania?
I'd totally order the PPV if I get to see Austin deliver another Stunner to Trump.
You know who else promised to revitalize a country's economy?
George Marshall?
Hamilton?
By having a shitty play written about himself?
By inspiring young white rappers everywhere
Why is it shitty?
Other than the pandering to diversity the lyrics and story are quite good.
Of course for some the cup is always half empty.
I didn't just promise - I did!
Nice glamour shot in the link!
Did you get that done at the mall?
Hugo Chavez?
While this is true, it doesn't answer the important question, which is, regardless of how much effect a prez can have on the economy, is a particular candidate likely to have good or bad effects?
Agreed. Cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% is going to provide more growth than raising taxes on the "rich".
This will also bring jobs back home. Trump should repeat that in every speech.
Correct. Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% and decreasing regulations will lead to more growth than raising taxes on the "rich".
But it won't be the right kind of growth, like growth in government power and bureaucracy.
What was I thinking!
And where the hell was my 8:38 post hiding!
The squirrels are up early today.
Obama admin twice wired money to Iran, directly contradicting Obama's claims.
The word "illegal" or any reference to laws themselves never appear in Politico's story. Odd, huh?
"I learned it from Hillary, OK?!"
Putting "Reason Staff" on the front doesn't work. I know it's Chapman and I'm not reading that.
Look on the bright side- it isn't Richman.
Yet.
I got a sneak peak. The Lynx are coming from Richman! Get out of the Internet!
A.M. Lynx - The Chjoornobyl Edition. Lovely.
Indeed. After you get finished polishing that turd, perhaps you can then find the clean end and pick it up. I'll watch from over here.-)
Is Reason publishing Richman's bullshit anymore? I haven't noticed any of his articles for a few months now.
"For years, the Fed has been using low interest rates and expansionary monetary policy to goose growth. "
Since you can't go lower than zero (Germany notwithstanding), they've shot their wad. Keynesism fail.
Oh, they're finding ways to bring that interest rate negative believe you me. They just hide it.
Wilkow did a whole thing on his show about how that was the subject of Hillary's speech for Goldman's Sack.
So, what Chapman is saying here is that a person for President is making all kinds of idiotic promises of economic growth he couldn't possible deliver...
I'd pull out my shocked face, but it's permanently broken due to overuse during this election cycle.
Ah, yes. An entire article based on the musing of one economist who doesn't believe the POTUS has much economic impact.
as if we are to believe the vast regulatory and tax infrastructure doesn't take its marching orders from the POTUS
as if we are to believe the POTUS doesn't impact the bills that pass through congress dictating everything from taxes to entitlements
as if we are to believe the various czars put in place by the POTUS have no impact on the markets they meddle in.
Can your blinders be any bigger, Chapman?
His point is that while the president may have lots of power all of the schemes that the regulatory agencies execute do not in the end have a beneficial effect on the economy.
It's not that the POTUS doesn't have much economic impact, it's that most of the impact is neutral or worse, negative.
Actually, his point was that a POTUS has limited impact on the economy at all, either positive or negative.
This is a nonsensical claim and is headlined as "Trump's economic fraud". It's an empty hit-piece that is completely lacking in any sober assessment of pros and cons.
Is Trump overblowing what he can accomplish? Well, yeah, as does every politician, or lest we forget that Obama was supposed to lower the seas.
why single out one candidate when they both are making similar claims click bait I guess and it worked
Even The Atlantic admits it: "The Myth That the President Can Save the Economy"
Excellent article. Partly because it is exactly on point but also because it spreads the blame more.
RE: Trump's Economic Fraud
In reality, the president has a limited impact on growth.
Look, cronyism can hardly be called economic fraud.
It's been working in this country for decades.
So why make a big deal out of something that have made politicians and their cronies rich for so long?
I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
??? http://www.NetNote70.com
Get Your Solution In Just Simple Way By Our Black Magic Specialist Baba Ji.
Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
------------------>>> http://www.highpay90.com
Well, given the current environment where the Fed has already done what it can to "help" the economy, the few things left that CAN help are all in the realm of congress and the president.
If Trump does ANYTHING he says I think it will be to try to cut tax rates and lighten regulation... Which are the 2 biggest problems facing American businesses (other than foreign competition whooping our asses with cheap labor). Taxes will require congress 100%, so if the Republicans hold congress it is possible.
More importantly, in our top down system as it stands now, the POTUS CAN actually exert a LOT of power over how regulations are implemented. Obama has done this to an extreme, all in bad ways of course. If somebody like Trump went in there and fired people and installed folks that took the lightest/most business friendly interpretation of laws the regulatory agencies have to follow it could be huge.
God forbid actually changing the underlying laws themselves to be more business friendly on top of mere interpretation.
So he COULD help bring a lot of jobs back by cutting red tape and taxes. Taxes might be hard depending on congress, but he would have a lot of sway in getting rid of red tape. Not saying he will, but if he does anything he's promised I don't see why this kinda stuff wouldn't be at the top of his list.