ADVERTISEMENT

The Trump tax cuts were supposed to set off an investment boom. They haven’t so far.

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,937
113
YMO7EFDEXNA25L5QUDIGHZBV6E.png

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (None)

By Matt O'Brien
October 27

The details might have changed, but the story remains the same: The economy is growing well, but not for the reason President Trump was hoping for.

Which is to say that there’s still no sign that his tax cuts are spurring the kind of investment boom they were supposed to. Indeed, according to the latest GDP numbers, nonresidential fixed investment was only up 0.8 percent in the third quarter of this year, adding a measly 0.12 percentage points to the economy’s better-than-expected 3.5 percentage points of growth. Part of this, as former Obama adviser Jason Furman points out, is probably because the most recent surge in oil investment is starting to fade — that seems to be why business spending on structures just fell — but even if you strip that out, there’s been very little increase in investment overall.

What seems to be happening instead is that the Trump tax cuts are just providing a boost to consumers. That, at least, is where the strength of the recovery continues to lie. Consumer spending was up another 4 percent in the third quarter and contributed nearly 2.7 percentage points to growth.

If you put all this together, then, you get a picture of an economy that’s growing at around 3 percent right now because of all the short-term stimulus it’s getting, but will soon go back to the 2 to 2.5 percent it was at before because that stimulus isn’t changing companies' long-term behavior like the Trump administration thought it would. They were convinced that cutting the corporate income tax would make investing here so attractive that money would come pouring in from overseas. That would then fund the investments we needed to increase growth today, and the fruits of it — higher productivity — would increase growth tomorrow as well.

Except, well, it’s not. The problem is that while the tax-cutting story the Trump administration was telling might be true for a small, open economy like, say, Bermuda’s, it was never going to be for a large and slightly closed one like our own. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that we’re seeing perhaps a modest increase in investment, but not the bonanza we were promised.

Now, that isn’t to say that our economic prospects are in any way gloomy. They’re not. Even if we can’t expect the economy to keep growing at the same 3 percent pace it has for the past year, we can expect it at least to do pretty well — and maybe even better than that in 2019. That’s because there will still be plenty of stimulus left in the system at that point, and the economy should have plenty of momentum then, too. The best way to tell that is to look at something that’s known as final sales to private domestic purchasers. It takes out all the most volatile parts of GDP — exports, inventories and government spending — to give us a better idea of the economy’s underlying strength. This increased 3.1 percent in the third quarter, and, as you can see above, is up 3.4 percent in the past year.

The big picture, though, is how little Trump has done to change our long-term economic outlook. His tax cut certainly seems to have juiced growth this past year, but since it wasn’t paid for, it has also made the Federal Reserve raise rates enough that its net effect should be pretty close to zero by the end of the next year or so. Unless, of course, companies do start investing far, far more than they are right now.

It’s the worst “Waiting for Godot” reboot ever.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...oom-they-arent-so-far/?utm_term=.1c8ad77fd3cc
 
"But there are some more telling figures about just how much progress has been made under Trump.

At a time when most economists had been using the term “full employment” to describe the economy, 3.9 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the working during the Trump term. During the same period under former President Barack Obama, employment had fallen by 2.6 million. The economy in total, while still not in breakout mode, has grown by $1.4 trillion through the second quarter under Trump; the same time period for Obama saw a gain of just $481 billion, or a third of Trump’s total.

Businesses are investing, consumers are spending and innovation is on the rise as well."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-growth-on-fire.html
 
Good column. I can't even follow the argument that a ramp up in capital expenditures would help the labor force. An automaker isn't going to build a new factory without seeing demand increase, and if it did build a new factory, it would be much more automated than the previous ones. Are tech companies like Apple and Google limited by capital? Obviously not, or they wouldn't be buying back their stock at record rates.
 
"But there are some more telling figures about just how much progress has been made under Trump.

At a time when most economists had been using the term “full employment” to describe the economy, 3.9 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the working during the Trump term. During the same period under former President Barack Obama, employment had fallen by 2.6 million. The economy in total, while still not in breakout mode, has grown by $1.4 trillion through the second quarter under Trump; the same time period for Obama saw a gain of just $481 billion, or a third of Trump’s total.

Businesses are investing, consumers are spending and innovation is on the rise as well."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-growth-on-fire.html

Seriously - the "same period under Obama"? Does that mean 2009 and 2010, his 1st two years? Does the article suggest that Trump would have had the same "success" he is now back in 2009 and 2010?
 
Good column. I can't even follow the argument that a ramp up in capital expenditures would help the labor force. An automaker isn't going to build a new factory without seeing demand increase, and if it did build a new factory, it would be much more automated than the previous ones. Are tech companies like Apple and Google limited by capital? Obviously not, or they wouldn't be buying back their stock at record rates.

Exactly. Just like most economists predicted. Companies don't invest because they have cash, they invest when they have opportunity.
 
Exactly. Just like most economists predicted. Companies don't invest because they have cash, they invest when they have opportunity.
My company is saving about $50M on the tax cut. Gave employees about $1.5-2M (one time deal). Did some IT spending, maybe $10M. To create efficiencies - duh. The rest goes to shareholders, as you would expect. Nothing that will help the employees medium or long term.
 
My company is saving about $50M on the tax cut. Gave employees about $1.5-2M (one time deal). Did some IT spending, maybe $10M. To create efficiencies - duh. The rest goes to shareholders, as you would expect. Nothing that will help the employees medium or long term.

That's interesting. Glad the employees got some.

Do you think that IT spending was more than the company would have done without the tax cut?

I worked in business, and with client businesses for close to 40 years, and I would expect most companies would do something similar. 30 years ago I thought "trickle down" had merit, but I eventually learned the fallacy of that thinking.

Business acts in the best interest of the business first, the shareholders second, employees and or community after that. And, that's probably how they should act. These are not charities.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sooner-Be-Dead
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT