Instead of zooming to 130% debt-to-GDP ratio, the new Trump plan only takes it up to 105%.
For context, here’s the relevant quote:
“I am the king of debt. I do love debt. I love debt.” -Donald J. Trump, May 2016 (WaPo)
And here is the relevant, updated, graph:
Source: CRFB.
More on the macroeconomic implications of the Trump plan, to come (preview: Not Good).
On a side note, here is a petition by “Economists concerned about Hillary Clinton’s Economic Agenda” — apparently the people who signed could not cross the bridge to say the were in Favor of Trump’s Economic Agenda (despite the fact the document emanates from a Trump office building).
Brad DeLong comments.
The worst part of that letter is it lists Larry Kudlow as an economist.
does kudlow even have a degree in economics?
baffling: Not to my knowledge; no advanced degree, BA in history. Took some classes at Princeton Woodrow Wilson School.
“I am the king of debt. I do love debt. I love debt.” -Donald J. Trump
Quite possibly the only honest thing the man has said this entire campaign.
Come on Menzie. You post the petition, which says to reply to the email with my name and affiliation but then you forget to include the email address. How am I supposed to sign?
Rick Stryker: Sorry. I didn’t get the email myself, so can’t post the “reply-to” email.
But, wouldn’t this be a natural result of trying to end the “safe asset shortage”, by issuing more treasuries and spending more money?
Trump’s plan looks pretty great from this perspective: The World Needs More U.S. Government Debt https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-27/the-world-needs-more-u-s-government-debt-narayana-kocherlakota
“Analogously, the U.S. government should issue more debt, using the proceeds to invest in infrastructure, cut taxes or both. Instead, political forces have imposed artificial constraints on debt — constraints that punish savers, choke off economic growth and could sow the seeds of the next financial crisis.”
There’s a big difference between running large cyclical deficits to fund spending on infrastructure and the social safety net versus permanent, structural deficits that result from tax cuts for the 1%. If Trump really believes his nonsense about 4% growth under his plan, then the rationale for running deficits collapses. All he’s left with is the cranks & charlatans argument.
i would really like to know what that group of economists think about trumps economic policies. are they sound and producing growth? because trump will embrace debt. i don’t think be believes in paying cash for anything. that will be your 4 year economic policy under his leadership.