【书摘】川普4年的美国经济如何上去的？

摘自：

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

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

==

【欧巴马政府的经济顾问，以及其他一些经济学家认为，美国GDP的常态是年增长率不超过2%。但是，川普政府在4年里，打破了这个迷思。】

==

235-236】

【迈克·穆尔瓦尼（Mike Mulvaney）于2020 年 5 月 1 日至 2021 年 1 月 6 日任白宫办公厅主任、管理和预算办公室主任】

那么，特朗普团队是如何实现奥巴马团队认为不可能实现的任务的呢？

“我们放松了政府的管制【deregulation】。我们从根本上改变了对资本生产的征税方式，即创造财富的方式，”迈克·穆尔瓦尼说。 “所以，当我们放松这种管制时，这是一个结构性的变化。

“人们说，你们只是利用较低的税收，就像‘糖高【sugar high】’；或者他们说你们去年增加了支出，那也是一种‘糖高’。

==

【注】：糖高【sugar high】，指人们食用了某些高糖食物后产生的短时期的血糖突然升高的现象。这里比喻美国经济短期性的增长。

==

“我说，‘好吧，这两件事是真的。但放松政府管制是一种结构性的变化，它每年都会带来好处。如果现在开办企业更容易，那么你现在开办企业也会更容易。对我来说，明年也会更容易开展业务。这是一种结构性的变化。如果我们采取刺激措施，那只是一次性的事情。但放松管制是使得经济不断增长的礼物。”

啊，但是等等。民主党人说你们正在摆脱所需要的法规。你怎么回答？

穆尔瓦尼以“美国水域【waters of the US】”规则和企业平均燃油经济性 (Corporate Average Fuel Economy，CAFE) 标准的两个例子来说：“实际上有数以千计的旧法规从未被清除，还有其他的法规急需澄清。” 

你们是怎么做到【放松管制】的？我【作者 Doug Wead】问。

“通过允许他们享受税收的优惠来投资自己的企业。如果你对你的企业进行资本投资，你可以立即扣除这笔投资。

“减税做了些什么？减税做了几件事。首先，它大大提高了生产力。

“看，GDP 是一个数学方程式，你可以把它与许多不同的因素联系起来。实现 GDP 的方法之一是工作的人数乘以每个人的产出。好吧，那就是国内生产总值【GDP】。人们在生产。

“在这个等式中有两个因素：工作的人数和他们的个人产出。现在，我们取得了一些成功。人们认为我们在工作人数方面无法取得进展。我们的批评者说，'哦，美国人口正在老化【is graying】，而你们这些可怕的川普人永远不会增加足够的移民，所以你们永远无法增加工作人数。我们通过鼓励人们回到在欧巴马政府时期放弃的工作场所来做到这点。

“然后我们专注于民主党从未想过的其他事情。我们再次提高了生产力。他们认为那些日子已经过去了。我们说不。如果我们能让企业进行资本的投资，那么人们的生产力就会更高。

“这确实是我们所看到的。生产力提高了。例如，我们鼓励企业购买新的更好的机器。随之而来的是生产力的提高，人们的产出增加了。

“GDP上升了。不仅GDP上升了，经济也增长了。这是在我们认为是供给侧增长的情况下完成的，这就是我们没有发生任何通货膨胀的原因。

“请记住，你和我的年龄足以记住什么是通货膨胀。它被松散地定义为‘太多的钱追逐太少的商品’。在华盛顿的4年里，民主党人和其他凯恩斯主义者会想，'每次经济升温时，我们有通货膨胀的风险。人们把更多的钱带回家。对商品的需求将会增加。这就是通货膨胀。“

“那你怎么解决？你生产了更多的商品。

“回到我们创建的系统，它鼓励资本投资，鼓励生产力，并鼓励商品的产出。你没有通货膨胀。你没有太多的钱去追逐太少的商品。更多的商品可以抑制通货膨胀。这就是人们自[有影响力的美国经济学家]米尔顿·弗里德曼【Milton Friedman】和亚瑟·拉弗【Arthur Laffer】以来一直在谈论的供给侧现象。

“你知道，很久以前，在 80 年代，罗纳德·里根 (Ronald Reagan) 作为总统候选人，他们一直在谈论供应方面的革命。嗯，我们能够做到。

“所以，你的生产力提高了，GDP 增加了，工资也增加了，因为工资往往随着生产力的提高而上涨。我们在没有通货膨胀的情况下做到了这一切。”

====

【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."