“Hillary Clinton’s economic plan would not improve this anemic growth or heal other economic ills. It would raise taxes, increase regulation, and impose further restrictions on fossil fuels that would significantly raise energy and electricity costs. Clinton would also perpetuate trade policies she helped craft that have led to chronic and debilitating trade deficits. All this points in the wrong direction.
Even Clinton’s centerpiece stimulus plan is growth-inhibiting. It would tax businesses to fund a highly leveraged national infrastructure bank. This approach would shift funds from the more efficient private sector to a less efficient government bureaucracy and introduce high-risk, subprime lending to the government.”
On the contrast Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross claim that Trump's plan would realign corporate incentives so that it would be more profitable to invest in the United States by describing four components which would drive every nation's GDP and as the United States structural economic problems are primarily focused on the investment and net exports growth drivers and they also claim that Trump's plan of cutting the high corporate tax rate, reducing unnecessary regulation and cracking down on trade cheating would make U.S. corporation competitive on domestic soil. While Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross gave lots of evidence to prove their claims, I do not agree with Trump being the only way to improve it, one person can not improve something as large as the U.S. economy it takes everyone as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment