这是《华尔街日报》有关2016美国大选对未来经济带来的极其难以预料的影响，有些报道是几个月前的。
下篇列举些影响今年民意的经济因素。
Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Economic Issues
Josh Zumbrun
More than 80% of economists see downside risks to economy if Trump or Sanders elected, survey says
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greeting supporters after a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C. on March 9
Try making an accurate economic forecast for 2017 when the U.S. president could be anyone from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump.
Just as the 2016 race has stymied political prognosticators, it is also confounding economists. More than three-fourths of forecasters in a new Wall Street Journal survey say the presidential election has introduced more uncertainty than is typical from a change at the White House.
Markets rebounded over the past month as economic reports bolstered the case that continued—though moderate—economic growth seems likely. The average survey respondent estimates the economy will grow about 2.4% this year and next and that the unemployment rate will fall to 4.6% in 2017.
A new president promising dramatic and immediate changes could quickly upend that.
“It’s stunning to me the markets aren’t more worried about it,” said Diane Swonk, founder of DS Economics, an economic risk-management firm. The rhetoric on the campaign trail is full of “pretty startling stuff -- isolationism, nationalism, reduced trade flows. We know what that does economically."
The average survey respondent in February’s WSJ survey saw 2.3% growth and employment at 4.7%.
The business, financial and academic economists in the survey say they are particularly alarmed by the rhetoric coming from insurgent campaigns of real estate tycoon Donald Trump, who is leading the Republican field, and Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist senator from Vermont who, though he has gathered fewer delegates than Hillary Clinton, continues to win states in the Democratic primary.
More than four-fifths of economists rate the possible election of either Mr. Sanders or Mr. Trump as an outcome that may force them to lower their economic forecasts. About half the survey’s respondents rate them as “significant” risks.
Indeed, part of the appeal of Messrs. Trump and Sanders to voters is that they’ve rejected the orthodox approach that Washington has typically taken toward economics. Many voters are aiming to disrupt this status quo. In turn, economists don’t know what to make of proposals to curtail trade, sharply restrict immigration or dramatically overhaul the tax code.
“The uncertainty is so great that it is hard to know how to react to it,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, a firm that specializes in forecasting high-frequency economic data, Federal Reserve policies, and the amount of debt the Treasury will issue.
The Wall Street Journal surveyed 64 economists from March 4 to March 8, though not every one answered every question. Their current economic forecasts aren't all rosy: On average they see about a 20% risk of recession in the next year, down slightly from 21% in the previous survey. They forecast the economy will be too fragile for the Federal Reserve to raise rates before June. They predict the economy will add fewer jobs this year than in 2014 and 2015.
The respondents work for businesses, research firms, trade associations, universities and financial institutions both large and small. Their common bond is they are rewarded for accurate forecasts.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders prior to speaking out against trade legislation in Washington on June 3, 2015
They believe their task would be easiest with the election of Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A plurality of respondents don't see forecasting risks if these candidates are elected.
A plurality of economists rated Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) as posing “somewhat” but not a “significant” risk if he assumes office. While Mr. Cruz embraces many standard Republican policies, he also led an insurrection that closed the government for several weeks in 2013 and that many believe harmed the economy.
Regardless of who wins, some forecasters believe the economy will be little changed next year, as macroeconomic policies take time to work their way into the economy and as many big changes must go through Congress before being enacted.
JEFFREY SPARSHOTT
Evidence piles up showing how uncertainty about the U.S. presidential election rattles businesses and consumers
The leading candidates in the U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have proposed divergent or vague economic plans, and the resulting uncertainty over the future is taking a toll on markets
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton promise to rejuvenate the nation’s economy. Meanwhile, the process of electing one of them to the presidency will likely bruise it.
The two leading presidential candidates, who sit far apart on the ideological spectrum, have prescribed either divergent or vague plans for trade, taxes, immigration and other policies that deeply influence the economy. That is stoking uncertainty, something businesses don’t like and consumers can find unsettling.
“Firms are going to be reluctant to invest or hire if they have no idea of future government policy, and if it’s cheap to wait they will do that,” said Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford University professor who has studied the effects of uncertainty on the economy.
The evidence shows up across a wide range of surveys and data sets. Mr. Bloom developed an index linking policy uncertainty—often seen ahead of elections—to greater stock-price volatility and declines in investment, output and employment. Wells Fargo research highlights the underperformance, dating back to 1933, of financial markets in years when no incumbent is running. And recent surveys from Bank of America and PricewaterhouseCoopers show rising anxiety among businesses tied to the election.
To be sure, a number of forces—linked to politics, policy and more—are responsible for broad shifts in the economy. The U.K.’s potential exit from the European Union and the Federal Reserve’s next steps on interest rates, for example, are seen by many investors and economists as more significant.
“The Fed is far more important to the global economy than U.S. presidential elections,” said Brian Levitt, senior investment strategist at OppenheimerFunds.
Heightened political uncertainty appears to depress economic activity at least until an election ends. Stanford’s Mr. Bloom estimates a tight campaign, particularly among candidates with very different policy platforms, would cut growth by as much as half a percentage point in the quarters running up to the election. The U.S. already has little wiggle room: The economy expanded a scant 0.5% at a seasonally adjusted annual rate in the opening quarter of the year.
Businesses “may even like the Trump policies,” Mr. Bloom said. “It’s just that Trump is so different from Clinton and he’s so unknown that there’s a big black cloud of uncertainty hanging over the horizon and that will make them pause.”
Separate research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which created its own Partisan Conflict Index, finds similar results showing that political strife discourages investment, output and employment. Marina Azzimonti, an associate professor at Stony Brook University who helped develop the index, said a major swing in the index corresponds with a 1% drop in monthly private business investment.
Financial markets also bend under the weight of elections. Wells Fargo research tracking the S&P 500 index during the fourth year of presidential terms shows a 1.2% return in an open election year—when the incumbent isn’t running—versus a 9.7% return in a re-election year.
“It can be that difference between candidates and not being sure of which direction the country is going to take,” said Tracie McMillion, head of global asset allocation strategy at Wells Fargo. “Until you are sure you may put off purchases, whether you are a consumer or whether you are a business.”
Add in a lack of clarity over which party will control Congress and an open seat on the Supreme Court, and it’s an exceptional year for political uncertainty. Already, businesses from cars to guitars have noted the effects of campaign vitriol alongside an uncertain political environment.
“I have observed in the past when there’s very controversial elections—and it looks like we’re on the road to having one of those this year—that consumers sometimes hesitate around big purchases,” Mike Jackson, chairman, president and chief executive of AutoNation Inc., the largest operator of U.S. automotive dealerships, told investors last month.
Keith Brawley, vice president of global sales at Taylor Guitars in El Cajon, Calif., said big election years are usually tough on customers. “People are bombarded with negative messaging from candidates,” he said. “The fear, uncertainty and doubt they propagate don’t inspire consumer spending.”
Recent polls corroborate the corrosive effects of the current campaign. A PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of private companies found growing concern about the economy, partly tied to an uncertain regulatory and legislative outlook. That pattern has repeated in each of the last three campaigns.
And about two-thirds of small businesses said the presidential election will affect their business “a lot” or “somewhat,” a Bank of America survey found.
“Uncertainty causes markets and small-business owners to pause,” said Robb Hilson, BofA’s small-business executive. “Once things are decided, they tend to get on with the new reality. I expect that to be the case here.”
【专栏】America’s Coming Tax Increase
With the deficit projected to hit 5% of GDP in only a decade, the choice is either spending cuts or tax hikes
EDWARD P. LAZEAR
In this bizarre election year, the leading candidates have failed to engage in a serious discussion of one of the top economic issues on voters’ minds—federal deficits and the national debt. Yes, Donald Trump suggested he’d wipe out the $14 trillion public debt in eight years. But even with the economic growth from his tax plan, this is highly unrealistic, and he now says he’d “rather not be so aggressive.” Still, he has proposed an enormous tax cut and promised not to tamper with Social Security or Medicare, all of which points to massive revenue losses.
The debt held by the public has approximately doubled since President Obama took office and is now equal to 74% of gross domestic product. It is true that with the right policy mix, economic growth—stuck at just over 2% during the Obama “recovery”—will help close federal deficits and pay down the debt. At the end of World War II, for example, the debt-to-GDP ratio was at 104% and shrank to a low of 23% by 1974. But letting growth or future belt-tightening close the gap is the exception, not the rule. More often, higher taxes are the result.
The Democrats are explicit in wanting higher taxes, with Hillary Clinton pushing for a 4% surcharge on incomes over $5 million, higher capital gains taxes, and capped deductions. Bernie Sanders would raise the top marginal income-tax rate to 54.2%, tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income and expand the estate tax.
On the Republican side, Mr. Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich have outlined plans that reduce taxes, at least for now. The Trump plan lowers personal and corporate rates, the latter to 15%. The Cruz plan taxes all personal income (above a minimum) at 10% and replaces business taxation with a 16% tax on net business sales. Mr. Kasich would lower personal and business taxes and allow full expensing of capital expenditures.
According to recent analysis by the Tax Foundation, the Republican plans produce positive and the Democratic plans produce negative economic growth. True, the Democratic plans produce additional revenue, but not lower deficits given their spending aspirations.
Under current law, the Congressional Budget Office projected earlier this year that the deficit will grow to over 4% of GDP in six years and to 5% of GDP in 10 years. Deficits of this magnitude will rapidly increase federal debt. In an earlier CBO report’s “alternative” scenario, which makes realistic assumptions about the political process, the U.S. public debt will almost double again from its already high level in just over two decades.
If the CBO’s projections are close to correct, there will be strong pressure to raise taxes in the future, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. But it will be virtually impossible to squeeze this much blood out of the rich alone. One likely long-run solution, absent spending cuts, will be to institute a national value-added tax, which operates much like a sales tax, specifically taxing the difference between a firm’s revenues and costs at every stage of production.
Ted Cruz makes a VAT the centerpiece of his plan, although he prefers to market it as a “business flat tax.” It substitutes for a variety of other taxes (payroll, corporate and some income) that are paid now. The Cruz plan is pro-growth and has many advantages over rival plans, but keeping a value-added tax low and substituting it for other more-regressive taxes has proven almost impossible.
All 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, except the U.S., have a VAT. As my analysis of OECD countries (posted on the Hoover Institution website) shows, 26 countries have higher VATs now than they did when they first instituted the tax. The average VAT today among these countries is 19%. The U.K., Italy and Denmark have all raised their VATs by 10 percentage points or more. The VAT, wherever it has been implemented, has been a money machine for big government.
Moreover, VATs are rarely a mere substitute for other taxes. Of the 15 countries with VATs that are above the median for the group, all but three have tax burdens that exceed the average across OECD countries. Specifically, for every 1 percentage point that the VAT increases, the tax burden rises by about 0.8 of a percentage point. Were it a pure substitute tax, raising the VAT would have no effect on total taxes collected because other taxes would be reduced by a corresponding amount. Unfortunately, that hardly ever happens.
Even without the additional spending proposed by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, more projected spending in the future will likely lead to calls for ever-higher taxes. Without more budget discipline, America may be headed toward a European-style VAT tax and ever-larger government.
Mr. Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-09, is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.
With the deficit projected to hit 5% of GDP in only a decade, the choice is either spending cuts or tax hikes
EDWARD P. LAZEAR
In this bizarre election year, the leading candidates have failed to engage in a serious discussion of one of the top economic issues on voters’ minds—federal deficits and the national debt. Yes, Donald Trump suggested he’d wipe out the $14 trillion public debt in eight years. But even with the economic growth from his tax plan, this is highly unrealistic, and he now says he’d “rather not be so aggressive.” Still, he has proposed an enormous tax cut and promised not to tamper with Social Security or Medicare, all of which points to massive revenue losses.
The debt held by the public has approximately doubled since President Obama took office and is now equal to 74% of gross domestic product. It is true that with the right policy mix, economic growth—stuck at just over 2% during the Obama “recovery”—will help close federal deficits and pay down the debt. At the end of World War II, for example, the debt-to-GDP ratio was at 104% and shrank to a low of 23% by 1974. But letting growth or future belt-tightening close the gap is the exception, not the rule. More often, higher taxes are the result.
The Democrats are explicit in wanting higher taxes, with Hillary Clinton pushing for a 4% surcharge on incomes over $5 million, higher capital gains taxes, and capped deductions. Bernie Sanders would raise the top marginal income-tax rate to 54.2%, tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income and expand the estate tax.
On the Republican side, Mr. Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich have outlined plans that reduce taxes, at least for now. The Trump plan lowers personal and corporate rates, the latter to 15%. The Cruz plan taxes all personal income (above a minimum) at 10% and replaces business taxation with a 16% tax on net business sales. Mr. Kasich would lower personal and business taxes and allow full expensing of capital expenditures.
According to recent analysis by the Tax Foundation, the Republican plans produce positive and the Democratic plans produce negative economic growth. True, the Democratic plans produce additional revenue, but not lower deficits given their spending aspirations.
Under current law, the Congressional Budget Office projected earlier this year that the deficit will grow to over 4% of GDP in six years and to 5% of GDP in 10 years. Deficits of this magnitude will rapidly increase federal debt. In an earlier CBO report’s “alternative” scenario, which makes realistic assumptions about the political process, the U.S. public debt will almost double again from its already high level in just over two decades.
If the CBO’s projections are close to correct, there will be strong pressure to raise taxes in the future, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. But it will be virtually impossible to squeeze this much blood out of the rich alone. One likely long-run solution, absent spending cuts, will be to institute a national value-added tax, which operates much like a sales tax, specifically taxing the difference between a firm’s revenues and costs at every stage of production.
Ted Cruz makes a VAT the centerpiece of his plan, although he prefers to market it as a “business flat tax.” It substitutes for a variety of other taxes (payroll, corporate and some income) that are paid now. The Cruz plan is pro-growth and has many advantages over rival plans, but keeping a value-added tax low and substituting it for other more-regressive taxes has proven almost impossible.
All 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, except the U.S., have a VAT. As my analysis of OECD countries (posted on the Hoover Institution website) shows, 26 countries have higher VATs now than they did when they first instituted the tax. The average VAT today among these countries is 19%. The U.K., Italy and Denmark have all raised their VATs by 10 percentage points or more. The VAT, wherever it has been implemented, has been a money machine for big government.
Moreover, VATs are rarely a mere substitute for other taxes. Of the 15 countries with VATs that are above the median for the group, all but three have tax burdens that exceed the average across OECD countries. Specifically, for every 1 percentage point that the VAT increases, the tax burden rises by about 0.8 of a percentage point. Were it a pure substitute tax, raising the VAT would have no effect on total taxes collected because other taxes would be reduced by a corresponding amount. Unfortunately, that hardly ever happens.
Even without the additional spending proposed by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, more projected spending in the future will likely lead to calls for ever-higher taxes. Without more budget discipline, America may be headed toward a European-style VAT tax and ever-larger government.
Mr. Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-09, is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.
贸易：
DONALD TRUMP
Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization—moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas.
HILLARY CLINTON
Donald doesn’t see the complexity. He wants to start a trade war with China. And I understand a lot of Americans have concerns about our trade agreements—I do too. But a trade war is something very different.
Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization—moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas.
HILLARY CLINTON
Donald doesn’t see the complexity. He wants to start a trade war with China. And I understand a lot of Americans have concerns about our trade agreements—I do too. But a trade war is something very different.
