He misspoke. Bush actually meant that he'd improve the economic prospects of the 4 percent.
10
Jeb's father invented the phrase "voodoo economics" and his two sons continue the charade. Shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and the economy will boom! Well, it's been tried over and over again and has failed utterly. In Kansas it resulted in a huge deficit, whereupon they cut services to the poor and middle class and raised taxes--on the poor and middle class. Bush Jr. talked about "class warfare" and that's exactly what we're getting--Republicans doing their master's bidding by supporting the phenomenal greed of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
9
Increasing the growth rate is a function of initiating a new K-wave, a macro economic cycle. The beginning of a K wave is always accompanied by significant growth but it is followed by slowing and eventual stagnation as the gains of the initial phase become commoditized. We are in the later stages of the information wave, which like textiles, steel and petro-automotive waves before followed this pattern. The next logical wave is in energy and resource management to address global warming. It has been started by the Pope's recent encyclical but it contains a message conservatives are loath to adopt. That is Jeb's Gordian knot.
4
This is a great example of why no decent candidate needs an economist to tell them what can't be done. Now perhaps we won't do what would create such growth but it is possible. Put at 40% tariff on countries that we are running a trade deficit with. Phase it in to jobs can be returned to where the demand is. Now this might crash the Chinese economy but who cares.
Republican economists, whatever theory they worship nearly as their doctrine, can't explain current economy of slow growth with empirical evidence, contrast to the Keynesian economists. Without empirical data their mathematical theories, if they have, are nothing but hollow argument.
3
Yes, but if we re-order numbers, say, placing "4" between minus 3--Brother George's growth percentage--and 1-ish--Papa George's...? What we do not want to do--definitely do not want to do--is use Roman number-alls and call greater attention to Jeb!'s Roman "association". Plus, of course, Roman "4" is "IV" which could be read as Jeb!'d tolerate stimulation of ailing economy.
Sounds a lot like voodoo economics to me!
3
Lip service. Easy to spot a liar on this.
2
Does anyone in their right mind still think trickle down works? We've had over 30 years of legislation favoring Big Business and the wealthy, and we have yet to see any sustained improvement for the middle/working classes.
Now we have Rubio wanting to cut taxes on investment income to zero, in a Country whose income inequality is the highest in 100 years, and whose debt is unsustainable. This, with a shrinking manufacturing base and a growing financial one. Patent lunacy.
Passive income should never be taxed at a lower rate than labor - that's a**-backwards. Talk about a laissez-faire fantasy.
Now we have Rubio wanting to cut taxes on investment income to zero, in a Country whose income inequality is the highest in 100 years, and whose debt is unsustainable. This, with a shrinking manufacturing base and a growing financial one. Patent lunacy.
Passive income should never be taxed at a lower rate than labor - that's a**-backwards. Talk about a laissez-faire fantasy.
20
Well, when you live in Fantasyland, anything is possible, I suppose.
But ... as far as what economists say, I'd rather consult gypsy fortune tellers and Ouija-Boards than listen to their dribble.
The Republican Party has been hijacked ... by The-Keystone-Kops. I'll leave it to The New York Times to figure out what Pelosi, and company, are up to.
Lastly, on What's-Her-Name, I'll take The Fifth. (Dewar's -Neat)
But ... as far as what economists say, I'd rather consult gypsy fortune tellers and Ouija-Boards than listen to their dribble.
The Republican Party has been hijacked ... by The-Keystone-Kops. I'll leave it to The New York Times to figure out what Pelosi, and company, are up to.
Lastly, on What's-Her-Name, I'll take The Fifth. (Dewar's -Neat)
3
The CBO's 15 June 2015 publication regarding taxes, spending and entitlement programs completely debunked the ideas pushed by the radical left economists like Krugman. Unless we drastically change spending policy, by 2040 debt will exceed the nation's GDP with increasing economic disaster for all. The picture looks like economic collapse due to irresponsible spending, entitlements and politicians trying to buy votes with even more entitlements. I would urge everybody to read this CBO report instead of whining about what the government doles out in entitlements.
1
James compares GDP with debt. That's artificial and meaningless because total debt is cumulative while GDP is an annual recurring.
James then blames government spending but averts his gaze from the 800-pound gorilla in the room, which is irresponsible Republican tax cuts and un-financed wars.
Nothing in the CBO report refutes Dr. Krugman's position, which is borne out by repeated experience, including the 2008 conservative-caused economic collapse.
James then blames government spending but averts his gaze from the 800-pound gorilla in the room, which is irresponsible Republican tax cuts and un-financed wars.
Nothing in the CBO report refutes Dr. Krugman's position, which is borne out by repeated experience, including the 2008 conservative-caused economic collapse.
16
No, no, the Republicans have the perfect plan for 4% growth. Put college out of reach for all but the top quintile so most of our children will start full time careers at 18. Then increase retirement age to 70 and cut Social Security benefits so we can eliminate payroll taxes.
Problem solved.
(Of course most of us will be screwed, but the economy will grow...)
Problem solved.
(Of course most of us will be screwed, but the economy will grow...)
15
Wow so much wrong here where to begin?
- "The 4% Solution: . . ." book published by the GWB "Institute"
The Pres who deliberately took a Surplus economy and plunged it back into the red in less than 18 months, because, as Cheney put it:
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"
And then to put the cherry on top of the Sundae, doubled the 220+ year accumulated National Debt in just 8 years.
- Club4Growth??? Our primary problem isn't low GDP-Growth.
Our problem is that since the ReaganRevolution, GunEnthusiasts & ReligiousConservatives have politically empowered the Party-of-the-Rich to plunder the economic prosperity of the US and hand it over to the highest bidder/donor.
Even if this mythical 4% GDP Growth WAS attained, it would benefit the middle class very little in our trickle-up/LafferCurve Economy since about 90% of the benefits would go to the 1% and the employees on Wall Street.
- Productivity / Schmoductivity: Between around 1960 -2000 productivity gains came from computers Mainframes - Client/Server & etc plus Moore's Law, Transistors/Nano-Everything.
Since about 2000 Business Productivity is about replacing humans with machines/robots, AND replacing expensive US workers with cheaper foreign workers.
REALITY-CHECK= NAFTA & etc had almost nothing to do with this,
. . . it was happening already, and going to continue to happen ANYWAY.
All these Trade Deals did, was help the foreign workers very little.
- "The 4% Solution: . . ." book published by the GWB "Institute"
The Pres who deliberately took a Surplus economy and plunged it back into the red in less than 18 months, because, as Cheney put it:
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"
And then to put the cherry on top of the Sundae, doubled the 220+ year accumulated National Debt in just 8 years.
- Club4Growth??? Our primary problem isn't low GDP-Growth.
Our problem is that since the ReaganRevolution, GunEnthusiasts & ReligiousConservatives have politically empowered the Party-of-the-Rich to plunder the economic prosperity of the US and hand it over to the highest bidder/donor.
Even if this mythical 4% GDP Growth WAS attained, it would benefit the middle class very little in our trickle-up/LafferCurve Economy since about 90% of the benefits would go to the 1% and the employees on Wall Street.
- Productivity / Schmoductivity: Between around 1960 -2000 productivity gains came from computers Mainframes - Client/Server & etc plus Moore's Law, Transistors/Nano-Everything.
Since about 2000 Business Productivity is about replacing humans with machines/robots, AND replacing expensive US workers with cheaper foreign workers.
REALITY-CHECK= NAFTA & etc had almost nothing to do with this,
. . . it was happening already, and going to continue to happen ANYWAY.
All these Trade Deals did, was help the foreign workers very little.
13
The king of irresponsible spending is OBAMA who added more to the debt than every president since 1776 combined. The party of the rich? Where do you put the folks like SOROS, or all the Hollywood stars, or the Clintons? So far as how money moves within the economy, I think you should consider the following: People who are "rich" have expensive houses, cars, toys etc. but they never have cash. The rich have the money invested working or they are spending it. If I have a multi million dollar home, it means I gave that money to somebody else. If I have millions invested in bonds or stocks or real estate, I gave all off the money to somebody else in return for a piece of paper. Nobody who is wealthy digs a hole in the backyard and buries the money. It always flows to others one way or the other.
1
James, can you spare a dime?
6
It wasn't Obama. It was Reagan and GWB.
3
I'm not sure why Jeb is only promising a pathetic 4% growth year over year for every year he is president. Last Republican Presidential cycle, Tim Pawlenty promised us enternal 5% GDP growth per year. If Jeb wants my vote he's going to have to do better than a lousy 4%.
4
You write: Another way to achieve 4 percent growth would be through greatly increased working-age population: More people in the United States means a bigger economy.
This from a party that is steadfastly opposed to immigration, and in the face of technology that is steadily nibbling away at jobs availability by increasingly automating tasks that used to be done by humans. This latter has been noted by a growing number of economics and sociologists but has received far less attention than it needs right now.
Add to that the fact that more and more Americans find themselves forced to keep working well past 65 because they can't afford to stop....and they wind up holding jobs that might go to younger workers.
Sorry Jeb....your economic plans are no better than your party's mythical "alternative" to Obamacare.
This from a party that is steadfastly opposed to immigration, and in the face of technology that is steadily nibbling away at jobs availability by increasingly automating tasks that used to be done by humans. This latter has been noted by a growing number of economics and sociologists but has received far less attention than it needs right now.
Add to that the fact that more and more Americans find themselves forced to keep working well past 65 because they can't afford to stop....and they wind up holding jobs that might go to younger workers.
Sorry Jeb....your economic plans are no better than your party's mythical "alternative" to Obamacare.
7
Jeb Bush set out an target of 4 percent real GDP growth for a decade.
The only realistic way it can be done is through greatly increased working-age population. And Bush has repeatedly expressed support for TPP...
The only realistic way it can be done is through greatly increased working-age population. And Bush has repeatedly expressed support for TPP...
1
Ok, all well and good from the statistical side, so he wouldn't seem to be the winning candidate, but just how popular is the guy?
2
If Jeb Bush can believe in 4% growth, can I believe that people who say stupid stuff can be prohibited from running for public office?
15
If that were the case, then we'd see a lot less evaporation of billions of dollars by this mixed nut assortment of Republicans throwing their hats (with nothing underneath but smiley face and a golf divet, apparently) into the race.
2
Easy to get 4% growth. Eisenhower, Tax and spend like Ike. Rebuild America's infrastructure (like investing in a companies growth, we need to treat the country like a company). We will have jobs, spending and growth.
17
4 percent may be unrealistic but 2.5 percent could do wonders with proper distribution. For example, the recent sale of a painting for $155 million, a private deal between two wealthy individuals, genherated few jobs, though perhaps a few hefty paydays for lawyers and art experts. That same $155 million could have paid the for construction of over 600 homes at $250,000 each. How many construction workers, truck drivers, and supply workers could have been employed by building homes or better yet, weatherproofing and insulating the homes of poor Americans so they could lead healthier, more energy-efficient, more comfortable lives at lower cost, the equivalent of an increase in income? In one case two wealthy individuals engage in a private trade with no measuable gain for society, in the other the employment and beneficial outcomes touch hundreds if not more. We do not need 4 percent with maldistribution, we can get by with barely hald that well-allocated.
11
rebuild the airports, the trains and the roads,
6
After decades of policies constraining US economic demand, there is a potential for many consecutive years of very strong growth.
However, this would require high-demand, growth oriented policies - the exact opposite of the "supply-side" policies likely to be proposed by JEB!
To the skeptics arguing that there is very little difference between actual and potential GDP at the present time:
No one knows what this gap actually is.
In the 1990's Greenspan was able to get unemployment down to 4% - of which even liberal economists had been skeptical, until it actually happened.
The massive housing bubble demand of the 2000's, was *still* insufficient to create any significant supply constraints. Unemployment is still high - much higher than the headline number would indicate. History has shown that, after prolonged periods of slack demand, that national economies are capable of extremely rapid growth - if strong pro-demand policies are implemented. How much growth can we have? And for how long? No one knows for sure. But the proper policy response is quite obvious: Increase demand, and keep increasing it, as fast and for as long as supply constraints will allow. Only then will we know what is possible.
Bickering about exactly what growth rates will eventually be achieved, is a waste of time.
However, this would require high-demand, growth oriented policies - the exact opposite of the "supply-side" policies likely to be proposed by JEB!
To the skeptics arguing that there is very little difference between actual and potential GDP at the present time:
No one knows what this gap actually is.
In the 1990's Greenspan was able to get unemployment down to 4% - of which even liberal economists had been skeptical, until it actually happened.
The massive housing bubble demand of the 2000's, was *still* insufficient to create any significant supply constraints. Unemployment is still high - much higher than the headline number would indicate. History has shown that, after prolonged periods of slack demand, that national economies are capable of extremely rapid growth - if strong pro-demand policies are implemented. How much growth can we have? And for how long? No one knows for sure. But the proper policy response is quite obvious: Increase demand, and keep increasing it, as fast and for as long as supply constraints will allow. Only then will we know what is possible.
Bickering about exactly what growth rates will eventually be achieved, is a waste of time.
1
This s exactly how the GOP candidates will address income/wealth disparity, by claiming that tax cuts and deregulation will ignite strong growth that will trickle down to the middle and lower classes. But we already know that doesn't work, the rich have rigged the game in their favor! We need new policies that broadly share the growth that we do have, by reversing the distribution of wealth that has accumulated at the top, back to the middle. The economy can only grow so fast, it's how wealth is distributed that counts.
8
AS his infamous brother said, "you can say anything you want to get elected". These guys have no basis for almost anything they suggest. They make up their history. They hire PR people to promote them and they know they won't be held responsible if they get elected. Besides, they make the promises to certain groups who they know love to hear this stuff. 4%growth. lower taxes increase revenue, get rid of the immigrants but have cheap labor, remove health care programs but lower your costs, ISIS and the rest can be wiped out by our majestic military, all the welfare folks will be working when I'm elected etc.etc. Bush is just another of the actors reading his script.
15
Jebediah! Only the true faithful would ever believe 4% growth...
2
Jeb! is exceptional!! He needs to demonstrate that in a way that he can be nominated without destroying his chances to move to the middle to get elected.
Clearly, he can't do that on guns, defense, climate change, immigration, gay rights, women's rights, religious rights, privacy rights, free speech, campaign financing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, housing policy, tax policy, protection of our water, sky and earth, ... The other 30 odd Republican candidates are supporting even greater tax cuts, elimination of regulations, etc. Supporting Obama on TPP is not going to distinguish him. What's he to do?
Promise something off the wall but related to what American's want - a better economy. His statement that he achieved 4% when Governor of Florida might have worked - if the housing bubble that created the 4% increase hadn't already burst and the State of Florida hadn't just put out an economic forecast saying Florida's growth rate is only going to be 2.2% because it is just recovering from a disastrous housing boom (on Governor Bush's watch) Here is the language: " Florida ... from 2000 to 2006, outperforming the nation during that entire period and reaching its peak growth in 2005. With the end of the housing boom and the beginning of the real estate market correction in 2006 and 2007, the state slipped into four years of negative growth (2008 through 2011)" When Bush left office the growth rate was 0% - his odds of selling this pablum to get nominated
Clearly, he can't do that on guns, defense, climate change, immigration, gay rights, women's rights, religious rights, privacy rights, free speech, campaign financing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, housing policy, tax policy, protection of our water, sky and earth, ... The other 30 odd Republican candidates are supporting even greater tax cuts, elimination of regulations, etc. Supporting Obama on TPP is not going to distinguish him. What's he to do?
Promise something off the wall but related to what American's want - a better economy. His statement that he achieved 4% when Governor of Florida might have worked - if the housing bubble that created the 4% increase hadn't already burst and the State of Florida hadn't just put out an economic forecast saying Florida's growth rate is only going to be 2.2% because it is just recovering from a disastrous housing boom (on Governor Bush's watch) Here is the language: " Florida ... from 2000 to 2006, outperforming the nation during that entire period and reaching its peak growth in 2005. With the end of the housing boom and the beginning of the real estate market correction in 2006 and 2007, the state slipped into four years of negative growth (2008 through 2011)" When Bush left office the growth rate was 0% - his odds of selling this pablum to get nominated
7
4% growth! Great idea!
Shrink the moon with a shrink ray, bring it down to earth and then mine all the minerals! Great idea!
I want to make more money than my current job. I know, I'll take over A. Rod's job with the Yankees. I'm sure the Yankee's will pay me just as much as they are paying A. Rod! Great Idea!
I know, what if everyone in the middle east would have a tea party with the group they are thinking about attacking before they launched the attack. I'm sure that after getting to know the other guys over a cup of tea they'll call the whole attack off! Great Idea!
...
Shrink the moon with a shrink ray, bring it down to earth and then mine all the minerals! Great idea!
I want to make more money than my current job. I know, I'll take over A. Rod's job with the Yankees. I'm sure the Yankee's will pay me just as much as they are paying A. Rod! Great Idea!
I know, what if everyone in the middle east would have a tea party with the group they are thinking about attacking before they launched the attack. I'm sure that after getting to know the other guys over a cup of tea they'll call the whole attack off! Great Idea!
...
9
Even if you believe that a 4% growth rate is not realistically attainable, wouldn't it still be a worthy target to pursue? Or, do we want our leaders to limit their aspirations to results that are easily attainable? If so, where is the possibility of progress and growth?
Goals are good and stretch goals even better. However, even stretch goals should be realistic not impossible. Because if you do enact all the policies to hit that 4% goal you may find out that all you were doing was just creating a massive bubble that would blow up in your face. 3% would have been a stretch goal and 2.5% an admirable one.
With Bush, we will have a Great Leap Forward
... off a cliff and into a pile of stinking garbage.
1
Jeb(idiah) is full of horse feathers regarding 4%, unless he starts WWIII, which he might anyway...
1
The snapshot 4% growth in FLA while Jeb! was Guv involved ye olde Mother of All Housing Bubbles; Jeb! conveniently left office before the crash. So there's his 4% formula: blow a huge bubble and then stop the advance of time.
And I thought Jeb was supposed to be the smart one. Doesn't he know how difficult 4% gdp growth is in a mature economy? Oh, I guess he figures the American people are stupid enough to buy this fantasy, along with most of the other fantasies the GOP spins.
2
For as long as the US has been keeping track of such data (since the late 1940s), we've pretty consistently seen higher Real GDP growth with Democrats in the White House. We periodically elect Republicans who advocate supply-side policies, like Jeb, even though they don't work as promised.
7
He's making it up. Sperling treated Bush's claim as seriously as it deserved to be treated. A joke.
3
Talk of 4% annual economic growth is empty political posturing which should not be taken seriously. The last 40 years has made it clear that the GOP has no ideas capable of stimulating economic growth. Trickle down economics has been thoroughly discredited. All Jeb can advocate is more of the same tax cuts his brother foisted upon the nation, which squandered an unprecedented budget surplus (created by Democratic policies) & enriched the wealthy while failing to help the other 99%.
The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over & over while expecting a different result. It is crazy to think that Jeb or any Republican can deliver 4% annual economic growth. Our economy consistently performs better when we have a Democratic President.
The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over & over while expecting a different result. It is crazy to think that Jeb or any Republican can deliver 4% annual economic growth. Our economy consistently performs better when we have a Democratic President.
8
Every time I see an article like this I can't understand why the impact of closing costs (realty fees, transfer taxes, etc.) are not at least mentioned. Here in the northeast. closing costs are between six and twelve percent of the transaction.
Sell a house for $300K, buy a house for $300K and the cost of these transactions will be between twenty and forty thousand dollars (hope rounding is permissible). This means prices have to increase this much just to break even.
I just can't understand why economists either don't understand or choose not to mention the impact of these costs on home prices.
Sell a house for $300K, buy a house for $300K and the cost of these transactions will be between twenty and forty thousand dollars (hope rounding is permissible). This means prices have to increase this much just to break even.
I just can't understand why economists either don't understand or choose not to mention the impact of these costs on home prices.
4
Regardless of who is doing the projecting, it is hard to see how we can obtain any goal until we understand what the drivers are. As it stands we can't even agree on whether taxes help or hinder the economy nor on whether increased federal regulations act as a brake or fuel to innovation. Merely stating a goal is nice, but the devil is in the details
I wonder how far Bush would be willing to go to achieve this goal. One thing he could do, which would be directly under the government's influence, is to make a huge investment in our infrastructure (bridges, roads, airports, networks) and people (primary and secondary education). That might add perhaps a half- to three-quarters of a point of growth for, say, a 3-4 year period. But that goes against the Republican philosophies of lowering government spending and just cutting taxes and hoping millionaires spend more. I'd love to hear how he plans to pull this off.
11
He will invest in infrastructure. Unfortunately, it won't be ours. It will be in one or more of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Nigeria, or Syria.
6
the only worry Bush has is that some other yahoo running for President will promise 5% growth. Clearly he doesn't care whether his target it true or not, its just a "promise" to offer that his voters can then use to explain to themselves and others why they are voting for Bush. "What this country needs is growth!" they'll say, ignoring the fact that all the gains of the past 30 years have gone to the top 1% (probably since they don't understand enough about economics to realize that, any more than they understand the blatant falsity of a 4% growth rate).
9
Jeb Bush is tone deaf: The problem with the US economy is not essentially about growth (US growth over the last 5 years is quite good in comparison to the other advanced economies), it's about who reaps the rewards of that growth. Hillary will club him over the head with this; he's outlined a made to order solution for plutocrats that makes him look even more out of touch than people assume.
14
He might as well promise every American family will get its very own unicorn.
31
Funny part is Bush could only come close by adopting the liberal economic policies that fostered the higher economic growth rates.
Deep cuts in US military spending which is hugely unproductive use of resources, leveling SS and Medicare taxes so all income is taxed not just payroll income of those under $120K, energy efficiency policy to eliminate oil imports.
Those policies would produce about $800B economic stimulus which would be a 4.7% boost to GDP.
$500B in cuts in unproductive military spending.
$300B in oil trade deficit saved for US economy.
Some of that would be absorbed in paying down the $17T in current oil war debt but that should still combine with basic 2% GDP increase add an additional 2% to get a 4% GDP growth rate.
But that will never happen with GOP Reagaomics which produces low GDP growth, high military spending , high oil import deficits and high budget deficits.
Hillary might have a chance at it but Bush III, no chance.
Deep cuts in US military spending which is hugely unproductive use of resources, leveling SS and Medicare taxes so all income is taxed not just payroll income of those under $120K, energy efficiency policy to eliminate oil imports.
Those policies would produce about $800B economic stimulus which would be a 4.7% boost to GDP.
$500B in cuts in unproductive military spending.
$300B in oil trade deficit saved for US economy.
Some of that would be absorbed in paying down the $17T in current oil war debt but that should still combine with basic 2% GDP increase add an additional 2% to get a 4% GDP growth rate.
But that will never happen with GOP Reagaomics which produces low GDP growth, high military spending , high oil import deficits and high budget deficits.
Hillary might have a chance at it but Bush III, no chance.
19
Earth to Eagles PDX...the U.S. is now the world's largest oil producer. There is no oil import deficit. We export more oil than we import. For more than two years now. You're still living in the last decade.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-oil-pira-idUSL1N0I51IX20131015
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-oil-pira-idUSL1N0I51IX20131015
Americans should be leery of politicians who advocate high growth rates. In other words, Republicans. A 4% growth rate is not good for America. We need long term, stable growth, not the cyclical boom-and-bust economy Republicans have been claiming to be our salvation for decades. Meanwhile, we keep hitting the pavement hard at the end of each cycle, with the poor suffering the most.
It's also worth noting that growth between World War 2 and the mid-1960's was on fire, while the maximum personal tax rate stood at 90%. According to Republicans, such a dynamic is impossible. Bill Clinton raised income taxes and the economy took off like a Saturn 5 rocket, thanks to the Internet, cell phones and personal computers. The best advice is to not take economic or tax advice from Republicans. They're either lying or incompetent. Take your pick.
It's also worth noting that growth between World War 2 and the mid-1960's was on fire, while the maximum personal tax rate stood at 90%. According to Republicans, such a dynamic is impossible. Bill Clinton raised income taxes and the economy took off like a Saturn 5 rocket, thanks to the Internet, cell phones and personal computers. The best advice is to not take economic or tax advice from Republicans. They're either lying or incompetent. Take your pick.
17
What pessimism! C'mon people, we can do this! First, get rid of the IRS, and replace it with a national sales tax. That frees up money for the job creators.
Second, privatize Social Security and Medicare, and raise the retirement age to 80. (People are living longer, so they should work longer.) That will also free up money for the private sector.
Third, we need more free trade. (Note to protectionists: stop whining! Admit you like buying cheap imports at Walmart.)
Fourth, expand the H-1B visa program. Our corporations cannot find programmers and engineers to get the job done at a reasonable price. There are millions of Indians and Chinese who can get the job done for a lower wage. That is the definition of higher productivity!
Fifth, lower the minimum wage. Again, higher productivity.
Sixth, start a new war somewhere. That would increase the size of the military-industrial complex, the real engine of the American economy.
Seventh, repeal Obamacare. Again, more money for the job creators.
These are all tried and proven Republican ideas. Go Jeb!!
Second, privatize Social Security and Medicare, and raise the retirement age to 80. (People are living longer, so they should work longer.) That will also free up money for the private sector.
Third, we need more free trade. (Note to protectionists: stop whining! Admit you like buying cheap imports at Walmart.)
Fourth, expand the H-1B visa program. Our corporations cannot find programmers and engineers to get the job done at a reasonable price. There are millions of Indians and Chinese who can get the job done for a lower wage. That is the definition of higher productivity!
Fifth, lower the minimum wage. Again, higher productivity.
Sixth, start a new war somewhere. That would increase the size of the military-industrial complex, the real engine of the American economy.
Seventh, repeal Obamacare. Again, more money for the job creators.
These are all tried and proven Republican ideas. Go Jeb!!
35
Re: raise the retirement age to 80. The fundamentalist fellow who's the most likely GOP candidate for governor in my state's 2016 election would be all on board with that idea. He was recently caught saying there's no such thing as retirement in the Bible, so people should get over this idea that they can stop working when they get old.
Yes. Seriously. The state is MT, and the name is Gianforte; watch for more idiocy from him as the months pass.
Yes. Seriously. The state is MT, and the name is Gianforte; watch for more idiocy from him as the months pass.
1
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
6
"The idea is that lower tax rates and government spending would encourage people to work and invest"
This is bull poop. It always has been. The Republicans believe if you repeat it long enough, it becomes fact. But as Ben Franklin pointed out, if you call a dog's tail a leg, it still has four legs, not five.
1. Work. People want to work. They always have. They are not unemployed because they are sad about taxes and government spending. They are unemployed because they need a job.
2. Investment. If personal investment rates are increased, it will help individuals retire. But it won't add jobs, except maybe to Wall Street. Middle-class personal investments go into stocks, bonds, or other securities, not businesses. But these are traded on the secondary market, bringing no economic benefit other than raising the stock price. Under normal circumstances, if you buy stock for the XYZ company, no money goes to XYZ. The price goes to the seller and a commission goes to the broker. The capital gets locked up until you sell. It does diddly for the economy.
Actually, spending does much more. It is reinvestment in business. These businesses spend (reinvest) and economic benefits are multiplied. This brings us to ...
3. Government spending. It is reinvestment. It is good for the economy. By the way, with no government borrowing, there is no bond market, which is necessary to the economy.
This is bull poop. It always has been. The Republicans believe if you repeat it long enough, it becomes fact. But as Ben Franklin pointed out, if you call a dog's tail a leg, it still has four legs, not five.
1. Work. People want to work. They always have. They are not unemployed because they are sad about taxes and government spending. They are unemployed because they need a job.
2. Investment. If personal investment rates are increased, it will help individuals retire. But it won't add jobs, except maybe to Wall Street. Middle-class personal investments go into stocks, bonds, or other securities, not businesses. But these are traded on the secondary market, bringing no economic benefit other than raising the stock price. Under normal circumstances, if you buy stock for the XYZ company, no money goes to XYZ. The price goes to the seller and a commission goes to the broker. The capital gets locked up until you sell. It does diddly for the economy.
Actually, spending does much more. It is reinvestment in business. These businesses spend (reinvest) and economic benefits are multiplied. This brings us to ...
3. Government spending. It is reinvestment. It is good for the economy. By the way, with no government borrowing, there is no bond market, which is necessary to the economy.
16
"Middle-class personal investments go into stocks, bonds, or other securities, not businesses."
Those stocks and many of those bonds are from businesses. When you are buying a stock, you are investing in a business. When you buy a bond from a business, you are invested in the health of that business.
Those stocks and many of those bonds are from businesses. When you are buying a stock, you are investing in a business. When you buy a bond from a business, you are invested in the health of that business.
1
I think the Upshot should be better at labeling something a 0% chance. Maybe 1-2% chance might be reasonable, but a 0% chance is really going out on a limb, and reminds me how bad people are at putting things in a range of probabilities.
2
The GOP base likes simple nice whole numbers -
4 percent
9-9-9
They do not like complicated math or science or economics.
4 percent
9-9-9
They do not like complicated math or science or economics.
12
It would be very interesting if politicians announcing their candidacies would begin by NOT throwing out unrealistic numbers for everyone to shoot down on sight. If they would just say they're going to keep the things that work and study the elimination of things that don't, we'd have a believable debate. Jeb and the Donald announcing the same week is par for the Republican course. Not sure there's too much of a difference, either.
4
What he really means is 4% for the 1%.
That translates to only .04% overall, when you take the rest of us (the other 99%) into consideration.
Good grief; I've just given him flip-flop fodder...
That translates to only .04% overall, when you take the rest of us (the other 99%) into consideration.
Good grief; I've just given him flip-flop fodder...
15
Jeb(!) Bush has probably thought this 4-percent-growth 'plan' through so well that he already knows who he will blame when it fails.
17
Yea, blame Obama :)
Responding to a question about the pope's encyclical on climate change, Bush said, "I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or from my pope.” That's probably a mistake: he's going to need divine intervention to reach his his growth target!
15
Growth really amounts to improved demand. To illustrate: my family has five workers and, after taxes, each worker makes $100. Collectively my family can spend $500. What tax policy will make my family have the ability to spend $550?
If you lower taxes, my family can spend more as long as my family's other costs don't increase. But suppose you lower taxes and my family's interest rates go up? This happens because the cost of money borrowed by the government goes up (because, as we know all too well, expenses don't drop at the same rate revenue drops). So if my family's interest rates go up, my family's mortgage rates go up, which slows down the growth of housing because wages don't correspondingly go up.
In short, if the cost of money borrowed by the government goes up, the cost of money for everyone goes up. What does this lead to? Contraction. Instead of my family having $500 to spend, my family has $480 to spend because it's paying everything else to the higher cost of borrowing.
If you lower taxes, my family can spend more as long as my family's other costs don't increase. But suppose you lower taxes and my family's interest rates go up? This happens because the cost of money borrowed by the government goes up (because, as we know all too well, expenses don't drop at the same rate revenue drops). So if my family's interest rates go up, my family's mortgage rates go up, which slows down the growth of housing because wages don't correspondingly go up.
In short, if the cost of money borrowed by the government goes up, the cost of money for everyone goes up. What does this lead to? Contraction. Instead of my family having $500 to spend, my family has $480 to spend because it's paying everything else to the higher cost of borrowing.
4
In the film 'Citizen Kane,' its rich-guy title character perfectly expresses his shame and regret when he says in old age that he only used money "to buy things."
And so it can be said of the current crop of Republican 'leaders' -- Perhaps, in an honest moment while warming themselves over the incinerated 'Rosebud' of their hopeful youths, they would say they only used money "to invest."
And, of course, by 'invest' -- O how They like to change the meanings of common words -- they only mean one big, short-term gain without doing any work or taking any real risk, and without consideration of consequences.
It no longer amazes that They can't see the simple truth -- no matter whether the US economy is up or down, it still needs efficient highways, modern airports, safe bridges, clean schools and clean drinking water. And yet, during the last boom, and certainly during the recent, bust, They have said 'we don't have the money."
We don't have any, if such a thing is actually true, because guys like Jeb(!) 'invested' it (ie, squandered it) on the money fantasies of the Economic Royalists who have no interest in the economic development of this nation or of their neighbor.
They just want that short-term sale. And they will lie to you about fictional '4-percent-growth' to make you once against believe the lie that they are actually interested in true public investment. They want your vote so they can help themselves.
And so it can be said of the current crop of Republican 'leaders' -- Perhaps, in an honest moment while warming themselves over the incinerated 'Rosebud' of their hopeful youths, they would say they only used money "to invest."
And, of course, by 'invest' -- O how They like to change the meanings of common words -- they only mean one big, short-term gain without doing any work or taking any real risk, and without consideration of consequences.
It no longer amazes that They can't see the simple truth -- no matter whether the US economy is up or down, it still needs efficient highways, modern airports, safe bridges, clean schools and clean drinking water. And yet, during the last boom, and certainly during the recent, bust, They have said 'we don't have the money."
We don't have any, if such a thing is actually true, because guys like Jeb(!) 'invested' it (ie, squandered it) on the money fantasies of the Economic Royalists who have no interest in the economic development of this nation or of their neighbor.
They just want that short-term sale. And they will lie to you about fictional '4-percent-growth' to make you once against believe the lie that they are actually interested in true public investment. They want your vote so they can help themselves.
11
We're really bad at letting Republicans define the terms of conversation.
Here we are, discussing the feasibility of 4% growth like it's universally agreed that 4% is some magic target. Why not 3.5%? Or 10%?
Or how about this idea? Stick with what we've got, and don't screw anything up by destabilizing the economy through deregulatory market crashes. Then, invest in infrastructure and education, and let's enjoy moderate, stable growth for a decade, and revisit this topic at a later date.
Here we are, discussing the feasibility of 4% growth like it's universally agreed that 4% is some magic target. Why not 3.5%? Or 10%?
Or how about this idea? Stick with what we've got, and don't screw anything up by destabilizing the economy through deregulatory market crashes. Then, invest in infrastructure and education, and let's enjoy moderate, stable growth for a decade, and revisit this topic at a later date.
24
The GOP has been selling this snake oil for years and many people buy it.
Cuts taxes for the wealthy.
Wait for the economy to bloom.
Blame the govuh'ment and the middle class moochers.
Repeat.
Cuts taxes for the wealthy.
Wait for the economy to bloom.
Blame the govuh'ment and the middle class moochers.
Repeat.
50
AKA: you say:
"The GOP has been selling this snake oil for years and many people buy it."
Reality-Check: Virtually nobody is 'buying' this GOP-Economic-SnakeOil;
The only reason that they can pull off their ReverseRobinhood scheme is because the vast majority of the electorate is too ignorant and too indifferent to stop them,
And with the relentless electoral support of GunEnthusiasts and ReligiousConservatives they have gained control of
1. the majority of the State and Local Governments
2. Because of #1 they have been able to gerrymander the Congressional Districts to such an extent, that it is next to impossible for them to lose control of the HouseOfReps, even when they lose the Nationwide popular vote for Representatives.
3. Lifetime Tenure on SupremeCourt, replacing the concept of 1-man; 1-vote, with 1-Dollar, 1-Vote.
"The GOP has been selling this snake oil for years and many people buy it."
Reality-Check: Virtually nobody is 'buying' this GOP-Economic-SnakeOil;
The only reason that they can pull off their ReverseRobinhood scheme is because the vast majority of the electorate is too ignorant and too indifferent to stop them,
And with the relentless electoral support of GunEnthusiasts and ReligiousConservatives they have gained control of
1. the majority of the State and Local Governments
2. Because of #1 they have been able to gerrymander the Congressional Districts to such an extent, that it is next to impossible for them to lose control of the HouseOfReps, even when they lose the Nationwide popular vote for Representatives.
3. Lifetime Tenure on SupremeCourt, replacing the concept of 1-man; 1-vote, with 1-Dollar, 1-Vote.
"Kevin Hassett, an economist at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, said he thought it might be possible to achieve a period of 4 percent growth in the medium term, mostly through increases in labor supply, if the size of government were significantly reduced and taxes were reformed. The idea is that lower tax rates and government spending would encourage people to work and invest."
And a unicorn. And a dragon. And a pony.
Why does Josh Barro give a platform for a religious position? Why not the religious economics of others? They have their own "ideas", Why favor this religious economic poaition? Why is it privileged? Barro, barro, barro, hmmmmm.
The Upshot, 100% reliable for promoting its own ideologies not even knowing they are ideologies.
Sweet.
And a unicorn. And a dragon. And a pony.
Why does Josh Barro give a platform for a religious position? Why not the religious economics of others? They have their own "ideas", Why favor this religious economic poaition? Why is it privileged? Barro, barro, barro, hmmmmm.
The Upshot, 100% reliable for promoting its own ideologies not even knowing they are ideologies.
Sweet.
11
And Hassett left out "and a rising tide lifts all boats"
2
We're looking at anemic growth rates because we have squeezed the workers. If they do not have money, then they do not have spending power.
Need to expand consumption.
Invest in education, training, and infrastructure.
Raise taxes on the uber-rich, and lower them on the rest.
Need to expand consumption.
Invest in education, training, and infrastructure.
Raise taxes on the uber-rich, and lower them on the rest.
26
Your plan would work for most of us chumps who are stuck here in the U.S. of A., but what about those poor, international corporatists?
2
That would be in contrast to Hillary's totally believable plans to end income inequality even though it exists within its very own definition and external to the real world.
Mis-stating an opponent's agenda in order to ctriticize it is so tiresome. Please stop.
2
Jeb Bush meant 4% income growth per month for the 0.1%. He didn't want to be bothered about the details because they might sound too much like Mitt Romney's economic dreams.
26
So the only people who'll back up Bush's claim are the true trickle-down believers over at the AEI, who probably fed it to him.
To shrink government is to shrink demand.
Bush's record in Florida only looks even as good as it does, post-bubble, because of an endless flow of well-off northern retirees into the population. They are financially independent, pay for their own health care, buy property and services, and require few public services except law enforcement. And Florida never had to pay anything to make them that way.
To shrink government is to shrink demand.
Bush's record in Florida only looks even as good as it does, post-bubble, because of an endless flow of well-off northern retirees into the population. They are financially independent, pay for their own health care, buy property and services, and require few public services except law enforcement. And Florida never had to pay anything to make them that way.
32
I'm sure Jeb can find a 4% growth plan for the US economy. His family has an excellent record of finding things that don't really exist: Iraqi WMD, "clean coal," hurricane relief, a legal basis for torture ... the list goes on.
83
Jeb will use the same book keeping practices he used as board member for numerous failed companies. The CEOs of two of those companies turned out to be criminals. Jeb's response, "Who could have known?"
5
Super lazy reporting: "The Times has not reviewed his abs."
8
Oh? Would you want to do that?
As I noted in other columns, the mythical 4% GDP growth was achieved only 4 years for all Republican administrations since 1980 so Jeb would have to do better than any of his Republican predecessors. This is just one data point of many proving that trickle down economics is a failure.
10
More data on Scott Walker released today. Wisconsin ranked 35th in the nation in private-sector job growth during Gov. Scott Walker's first four years in office, according to detailed numbers released Wednesday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data show Wisconsin also ranked last among 10 Midwest states.
Perhaps Walker and Jeb Bush can compare notes.
Perhaps Walker and Jeb Bush can compare notes.
62
When you cut the income of the biggest group of consumers...the middle class...by outsourcing and trade deals you get anemic or no growth. When you cut spending on infrastructure and direct stimulation of the economy..... you get anemic or no growth. When you continually cut rates on top income groups you get growing income inequality.
Only the GOP can believe that laying off workers from good paying ( relatively speaking) government jobs to increase the labor supply , cutting taxes on top earners again,and increasing taxes (via sales tax) on the largest group of consumers will grow the economy.
Only the GOP can believe that laying off workers from good paying ( relatively speaking) government jobs to increase the labor supply , cutting taxes on top earners again,and increasing taxes (via sales tax) on the largest group of consumers will grow the economy.
54
Jeb is really something (not), thinking that just by being Jeb and saying he can, he can raise economic growth to 4%.
Could I be elected President if I said I would make all Americans millionaires?
Could I be elected President if I said I would make all Americans millionaires?
17
So much wrong with the Republican prescription, particularly Hassett's, its hard to know where to start, but I'd start with saying that I would far rather have everyone between 16 and 23 in school or college - learning the skills needed to increase productivity. Cutting the size of govt means laying off govt employees and hoping they find a job in the private sector. Based on the Kansas experiment, I'd say good luck with that, and the Kansas tax cuts have left its economy lagging behind its neighbors and its budget near bankruptcy.
Rubio and Huckabee don't seem to understand that the present problem with the economy is a lack of consumption, not a lack of investment. Zero tax rate on investment will only serve to make the rich richer - its exactly the wrong policy.
That said, simplifying the tax code and eliminating tax expenditures is a great idea, but "as much as possible" will turn out to be not much. Congress has shown they have no interesting in biting the hands of various special interests that feed them.
Rubio and Huckabee don't seem to understand that the present problem with the economy is a lack of consumption, not a lack of investment. Zero tax rate on investment will only serve to make the rich richer - its exactly the wrong policy.
That said, simplifying the tax code and eliminating tax expenditures is a great idea, but "as much as possible" will turn out to be not much. Congress has shown they have no interesting in biting the hands of various special interests that feed them.
36
"Achieving a higher national population would require higher foreign immigration" or an obvious reduction in contraception and abortion. It is a bit sick to think that America needs immigration rather than a restoration of family life. The poorer half of the U.S. population (62 million families) now share just 1% of U.S. wealth (down 70% since 1995). Tax reform can reverse this wealth decline, restore an interest in family formation and let young adults make babies like our grandparents did. Eliminating the payroll taxes by replacing the revenue with a small VAT would be a good place to start.
4
Jeb's economic miracle in Florida turned out to be a bubble that went bust in 2008. In a ranking (link below) of US metros by unemployment rate, all of the FL metros rank in the bottom half. The famous FL gated senior town, The Villages, has an unemployment rate of 7.0%.
Florida also ranks in the top 5 states in the US for violent crime, hence The Villages gate stays closed and the drawbridge drawn up.
Florida ranks #1 in foreclosures among states in 2015. It is the nation's capital of Medicare and medical fraud, (FL Gov Rick Scott ran HCA, guilty of the largest Medicare fraud case in history), a money laundering center for Latin America and many other notable achievements.
In the future, the US taxpayers will spend billions for damage in FL caused by storms and flooding of coastal development, while its top political leaders deny the role of climate change.
By all means, let's pay close attention to the prescriptions of Bush and Rubio and then run the other way.
http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm
Florida also ranks in the top 5 states in the US for violent crime, hence The Villages gate stays closed and the drawbridge drawn up.
Florida ranks #1 in foreclosures among states in 2015. It is the nation's capital of Medicare and medical fraud, (FL Gov Rick Scott ran HCA, guilty of the largest Medicare fraud case in history), a money laundering center for Latin America and many other notable achievements.
In the future, the US taxpayers will spend billions for damage in FL caused by storms and flooding of coastal development, while its top political leaders deny the role of climate change.
By all means, let's pay close attention to the prescriptions of Bush and Rubio and then run the other way.
http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm
75
A better question might be "Can Jeb paint portraits as well as his brother?" if so, we need to get him headed in that direction.... quick.
7
'...Another way to achieve 4 percent growth would be through greatly increased working-age population: More people in the United States means a bigger economy...'
And yet it has not led to prosperity for 99% of the population for the past 40-50 years, as our immigration policies, not even including illegal immigration. have allowed in a flood of low skilled and uneducated workers who take much more from the economy than they will ever contribute.
As long as the supply of labor outstrips the demand, wages will not rise for middle and working class Americans, but since the 1% benefits greatly from this inequality, the Republican Party will stay the course.
And yet it has not led to prosperity for 99% of the population for the past 40-50 years, as our immigration policies, not even including illegal immigration. have allowed in a flood of low skilled and uneducated workers who take much more from the economy than they will ever contribute.
As long as the supply of labor outstrips the demand, wages will not rise for middle and working class Americans, but since the 1% benefits greatly from this inequality, the Republican Party will stay the course.
7
The Democrats seem fine with this also.
As a member of a family of FDR Democrats, it's painful to see the D Party totally sell out its working and middle class members. Neoliberals and Neoconservatives both seem destructive to workers.
As a member of a family of FDR Democrats, it's painful to see the D Party totally sell out its working and middle class members. Neoliberals and Neoconservatives both seem destructive to workers.
1
Bill McBride at Calculated Risk has blogged on this as "2% is the new 4%" due to the demographics of low labor force growth. See http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/03/demographics-and-gdp-2-is-new-... After all, growing economic activity means more people working producing more goods and services more efficiently (productivity increase).
John Cochrane suggests that 4% growth for a couple years may be realistic if all sorts of conservative small Government deregulation, spending, and tax policies are followed (Confidence Fairy!!) but even he acknowledges that it would be against demographic head winds unless large scale immigration into the U.S. is allowed (talk about a political elite's disconnect from its base). (Irony note: If you look at McBride's blog he notes that the biggest increases in U.S. growth post-WWII occurred during the Korean War buildup and the Vietnam War/Great Society Government expansion. Yea Big Government!!)
Robert Solow notes that looking at the U.S. growth rate going back 1870, the U.S. has reverted to trend after going above the trend in the 1990-2007 period (bubbles anyone?).
John Cochrane suggests that 4% growth for a couple years may be realistic if all sorts of conservative small Government deregulation, spending, and tax policies are followed (Confidence Fairy!!) but even he acknowledges that it would be against demographic head winds unless large scale immigration into the U.S. is allowed (talk about a political elite's disconnect from its base). (Irony note: If you look at McBride's blog he notes that the biggest increases in U.S. growth post-WWII occurred during the Korean War buildup and the Vietnam War/Great Society Government expansion. Yea Big Government!!)
Robert Solow notes that looking at the U.S. growth rate going back 1870, the U.S. has reverted to trend after going above the trend in the 1990-2007 period (bubbles anyone?).
1