For whom does Trump govern? - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
观点 唐纳德•特朗普

For whom does Trump govern?

The Big Beautiful Bill Act is a classic example of pluto-populism
00:00

{"text":[[{"start":null,"text":"

"}],[{"start":5.38,"text":"Cui bono Trump? Whose interest does he serve? As Ivan Krastev has noted, he is serving his own interests in grotesque fashion. But what about other people? We know from the brutal closure of USAID that he cares not a jot for the poor overseas. But does he show concern for the ordinary Americans who voted for him? The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) wending its way through Congress shows that the answer is “no”. It is a powerful example of “pluto-populism” (“plutocratic populism”), as I first called it back in 2006. The rich receive most of the goodies; the poor become poorer; and the fiscal deficit stays huge."}],[{"start":53.81,"text":"Tariffs are a sales tax on imported goods, which will also tend to raise the prices of domestic substitutes. By and large, poorer people spend a higher proportion of their income on goods than richer people who spend a higher proportion on services or are saving much of it. So tariffs are regressive, as Kimberly Clausing and Mary Lovely of the Peterson Institute for International Economics argue. That may be part of why Trump loves them. Meanwhile, his tax cuts go mostly to the wealthy."}],[{"start":89.49000000000001,"text":"The Yale Budget Lab has estimated the impact of the tariffs implemented as of June 1 2025 and the OBBBA, as passed by the House of Representatives. Of course, the latter is likely to change. But the fact that it was passed by the House of Representatives at all is startling. In brief, the combination of tariff increases with the OBBBA “would reduce after-tax-and-transfer incomes on average among the bottom 80 per cent of US households. The bottom 10 per cent of households would see an average reduction of more than 6.5 per cent in incomes, while those at the top would see an increase of nearly 1.5 per cent.” (See charts.)"}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":138.73000000000002,"text":"Also, according to the Yale Budget Lab, as “conventionally scored, OBBBA costs $2.4tn as written ($4tn if the temporary provisions become permanent). The tariffs implemented as of June 1 would raise $2.4tn.” If this judgment turned out to be short of reality (I suspect tariffs will not raise as much money as that), Clausing and Lovely’s conclusion that, “as fiscal policy, the Trump agenda amounts to regressive tax cuts, only partially paid for by regressive tax increases” would be correct."}],[{"start":177.31,"text":"In his Substack, Paul Krugman concludes that he has “a pretty jaundiced view of [Republican] intentions. But this bill is so cruelly regressive that it shocked even me.” It is also, I think, so cynical. According to a letter from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the number of people without health insurance might rise by 16mn by 2034, as a result of proposed changes, in OBBBA and elsewhere. There are also to be cuts to the food stamps programme. It cannot be incorrect to state that many will die in order to afford large tax cuts for billionaires."}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":217.36,"text":"If we assume next to no effect of Trumponomics on US economic growth, the net effect on the fiscal position of the tariffs plus OBBBA seems to be a continuation of the previous fiscal trends. Thus, fiscal deficits will stay large and debt will rise relative to GDP. In The Long-Term Budget Outlook 2025-55, the CBO projected that the ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP would rise from 100 per cent this year to 118 per cent in 2035."}],[{"start":255.24,"text":"In his book How Countries Go Broke: The Big Cycle, Ray Dalio of Bridgewater argues that the reduction in the deficit needs to be 3-4 per cent of GDP, to stabilise the debt ratio. Is such an adjustment essential right now? The honest answer has to be that nobody knows. The US is the world’s biggest and most consistently dynamic economy and issues the world’s reserve currency. This gives it huge room for manoeuvre. But nothing lasts forever. If people lose confidence in the US, it could be forced to roll over debt on ever more unfavourable terms. Ultimately, much of it might become short term and so at interest rates set by the Federal Reserve."}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":303.57,"text":"The latter would then be under pressure to keep interest rates low. The impact of such debt monetisation cum financial repression could be highly destabilising. As MIT’s Rudiger Dornbusch once stated, “In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.” So, the sensible choice is to change course before it is too late. This makes even more sense if you have decided to wage a bitter trade war upon almost all your creditors: the harsh experience of Trump’s presidency will surely transform the world’s perception of the US."}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":349.96,"text":"In general, populism should be defined as a form of politics that sets “the people” against “the elites”. Populists can be of the left or of the right. Trump’s populism is evidently of the right, since it emphasises culture, ethnicity and nationhood. This provides fine cover for policies that benefit the plutocratic elite over almost everybody else. But in an excellent 2023 paper, “Populist Leaders and the Economy”, Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick and Christoph Trebesch reach two conclusions that apply to both rightwing and leftwing populists: first, both sets tend to inflict lasting damage on democracy itself; and, second, their imprudence, nationalism and assaults on institutions tend to impose large economic costs."}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":406.53999999999996,"text":"In the US, both parties have now effectively come to agree on the unimportance of fiscal prudence. Certainly, the Democrats have by now come to see little benefit from it, since it has so often set the stage for regressive tax cuts. A good guess then is that US indebtedness will go on rising. Dalio’s warnings are then prescient. As the late Herbert Stein once said, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” The questions are only when and how painfully."}],[{"start":449.66999999999996,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftmailbox.cn/album/a_1751498865_7874.mp3"}

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

Lex专栏:未进行对冲让嘉年华集团因小失大

与竞争对手相比,嘉年华集团因未及时锁定燃料敞口而付出代价。

美国各州围绕预测市场的一场豪赌

围绕监管权的争斗,可能重塑美国联邦体制的权力格局。

美国打击伊朗花了多少钱?

据估算,自特朗普2月下旬下令美军发动打击以来的五周里,对伊行动的成本为223亿至310亿美元。

伊朗战争能扭转斯塔默的政治命运吗?

时任英国首相戈登•布朗对金融危机的应对让其政治生涯重焕生机,这或许能为陷入困境的现任英国首相提供范本。

乌克兰无人机削弱了俄罗斯因战争获得的石油暴利

俄罗斯受阻的能源出口使得本已因伊朗冲突而动荡的金融市场进一步承压。

FT社评:英国需要拿出一套国防投资方案

计划一再推迟,正引发合作伙伴担忧,并可能导致关键技术流失。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×