Trump.

特朗普

So as this is VisualEconomic, today we believe it's time to talk about the economic vision of the next President of the United States, Donald Trump's plan for America.

是以，這裡是《視覺經濟》，今天我們認為是時候談談下一任美國總統唐納德-特朗普的美國計劃的經濟願景了。

Trump has already been in the White House.

特朗普已經入主白宮。

He's already had four years to govern and show the rest of the world what his plans are for making America great again.

他已經有四年時間來治理國家，並向世界展示他讓美國再次偉大的計劃。

And let's face it, everything indicates that a second presidency of the business tycoon will be more of the same, but this time on steroids.

讓我們面對現實吧，一切都表明，這位商業大亨的第二任總統任期內將會有更多的相同之處，但這次是類固醇。

Trumpism 2.0, now more Trump than ever.

特朗普主義 2.0，現在比以往任何時候都更特朗普。

But for what reason?

但原因是什麼呢？

Well, very simple.

嗯，很簡單。

In 2016, Trump was an outsider who managed to secure the Republican nomination almost by miracle.

2016 年，特朗普作為一個局外人，幾乎奇蹟般地獲得了共和黨的提名。

In fact, as we will explain in an upcoming video, Trump never really wanted to be president.

事實上，正如我們將在接下來的視頻中解釋的那樣，特朗普從未真正想當總統。

For him, running for president was more about gaining personal status as the great opponent of the Democrats.

對他來說，競選總統更多是為了獲得作為民主黨偉大對手的個人地位。

The reality is that in 2015, nobody gave a damn whether or not Donald Trump could really beat the successor of such an established leader as Obama.

現實情況是，在 2015 年，沒有人關心唐納德-特朗普是否真的能擊敗奧巴馬這樣一位老牌領導人的繼任者。

Well, he didn't actually win the popular vote.

實際上，他並沒有贏得普選。

More Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump.

投票給克林頓的美國人比投票給特朗普的人多。

But thanks to the electoral system, Trump was finally elected by the number of members of the Electoral College.

但得益於選舉制度，特朗普最終以選舉團人數當選。

It was really crazy.

這真的很瘋狂。

And Trump suddenly found himself president of the country without expecting it.

而特朗普突然發現自己成了這個國家的總統，這讓他始料未及。

These days, however, the circumstances are very, very different.

然而，如今的情況卻截然不同。

In those four years, Trump got used to the position of president.

在這四年裡，特朗普逐漸適應了總統這個職位。

He liked it.

他很喜歡。

He wanted to consolidate his power.

他想鞏固自己的權力。

And for that, he got the majority of his party on his side, as well as placing many like-minded officials in the institutions.

為此，他得到了黨內大多數人的支持，並在機構中安插了許多志同道合的官員。

Do you want some examples?

你想要一些例子嗎？

There are the three members of the Supreme Court that he nominated.

還有他提名的三位最高法院成員。

And while this is sometimes overstated, it's true that these are judges with a profile much more likely to vote for things that favor the Republican Party.

雖然這一點有時會被誇大，但這些法官確實更傾向於投票支持有利於共和黨的事物。

Now, this is not to say that all of Trump's appointees were puppets.

現在，這並不是說特朗普任命的所有官員都是傀儡。

Powell at the Federal Reserve has had many, many clashes with Trump.

美聯儲的鮑威爾與特朗普發生過許許多多的衝突。

And Mike Pence feuded with him following the events of January 6 with the assault on Congress.

而邁克-彭斯在 1 月 6 日襲擊國會事件後與他結怨。

For many, Pence became a counterweight to Trumpism, both within the government and the Republican Party.

對許多人來說，彭斯在政府和共和黨內部都成為了特朗普主義的制衡者。

A person who brought seriousness and restraint to the eccentricities of the new occupant of the White House.

他為白宮新主人的怪癖帶來了嚴肅和剋制。

But that's over now.

但現在一切都結束了。

Donald Trump's new vice president will not be Mike Pence, but J.D.

唐納德-特朗普的新副總統不會是邁克-彭斯，而是 J.D.

Vance, a man with Trumpism flowing in his veins.

萬斯，一個血管裡流淌著特朗普主義的人。

So, during his first term, Trump had to make many concessions to the more moderate wing of his party.

是以，在第一任期內，特朗普不得不向黨內較為溫和的一派做出許多讓步。

His hands were tied.

他的手被捆住了。

But everything indicates that this time, a free hand to implement his vision of America, whether for better or worse.

但一切都表明，這一次，他可以放手實施他對美國的願景，不管是好是壞。

What would happen then?

然後會發生什麼呢？

That's what we're about to tell you in this video.

這就是我們要在本視頻中告訴你的內容。

Let's go.

我們走吧

Trump shot up tariffs on Chinese goods, from washing machines to solar panels.

特朗普對中國商品（從洗衣機到太陽能電池板）加徵關稅。

Tariffs to which Biden then added fuel to the fire.

拜登隨後對關稅問題火上澆油。

Or should I say firewood?

或者應該說是木柴？

He poured on pure gasoline.

他澆上了純汽油。

While Trump raised $75 billion by means of punishing Chinese imports, Biden has raised $135 billion.

特朗普通過懲罰中國進口商品籌集了 750 億美元，而拜登則籌集了 1 350 億美元。

And of course, we all know by now that Donald Trump is a very bad loser, so he has proposed to leave these figures in the dust.

當然，我們現在都知道，唐納德-特朗普是一個非常糟糕的失敗者，所以他提出要讓這些數字灰飛煙滅。

Trump's 2016 tariffs went up from an average of 3% to 12%.

特朗普 2016 年的關稅從平均 3% 上升到 12%。

Now, he wants to go up to 60%.

現在，他想提高到 60%。

And let's see, in economics there are many things that depend on each situation.

讓我們看看，在經濟學中，有許多事情都取決於各種情況。

But there are others that are always true.

但也有一些是永遠正確的。

Tariffs are paid by consumers, ordinary Americans who buy foreign products.

關稅是由消費者，即購買外國產品的普通美國人支付的。

What does this mean?

這意味著什麼？

Basically that Trump is proposing one of the largest peacetime tax hikes in the entire history of the country.

基本上，特朗普提出的是整個國家歷史上和平時期最大的一次增稅。

A tax hike that is also very regressive.

加稅也是非常累退的。

Because yes, tariffs hurt the poorest consumers the most, those who have to buy inexpensive products from other countries.

因為是的，關稅對最貧窮的消費者傷害最大，他們不得不從其他國家購買廉價產品。

But not only that, the tariffs also force companies to pay higher prices for the raw materials they used to buy in China.

不僅如此，關稅還迫使企業為過去在中國購買的原材料支付更高的價格。

So they end up losing productivity, real wages go down and prices go up.

是以，他們最終喪失了生產力，實際工資下降，物價上漲。

The outcome?

結果呢？

As a result of these policies, US GDP is estimated to have fallen by 0.2%.

由於這些政策，美國國內生產總值估計下降了 0.2%。

Of course, none of this is going to stop Donald Trump from doubling down.

當然，這些都無法阻止唐納德-特朗普加倍努力。

For him, these failures, if he recognizes them as failures at all, are the consequences of having imposed tariffs that were too small.

對他來說，這些失敗--如果他承認它們是失敗的話--是徵收的關稅過低造成的後果。

But be very careful, because if the 60% tariffs on Chinese goods surprised you, believe me, it's not their worst trade policy by far.

但要非常小心，因為如果對中國商品徵收 60% 的關稅讓你感到驚訝，相信我，這還不是他們迄今為止最糟糕的貿易政策。

Because look, you could argue that all the costs we've talked about before are the price to pay in exchange for defeating a dangerous geopolitical enemy.

因為你可以說，我們之前談到的所有代價，都是為了打敗一個危險的地緣政治敵人而付出的代價。

In other words, we become China loses strength.

換句話說，我們變成了失去力量的中國。

The problem?

問題出在哪裡？

Well, this argument may make sense, but only to a certain extent.

這種說法也許有道理，但只是在一定程度上。

Because what doesn't make the slightest sense is the Trumpist proposal for a universal tariff.

因為特朗普主義者提出的普遍關稅建議才是毫無意義的。

That is, a tariff that affects not only China, but all foreign products, even if they come from allied countries such as the European ones.

也就是說，關稅不僅影響中國，而且影響所有外國產品，即使這些產品來自歐洲等盟國。

This would mean returning American trade policy to what it was during the Great Depression.

這意味著美國的貿易政策將回到大蕭條時期。

And to give you an idea, many economists believe that the tariffs of this era were one of the main causes of the crash of 1929.

許多經濟學家認為，這個時代的關稅是導致 1929 年經濟崩潰的主要原因之一。

And beware, because this tariff, up to 20%, would be for all products.

要注意的是，這種高達 20% 的關稅將適用於所有產品。

But on top of that, it would be necessary to add more to the products that have an extra tariff.

但在此基礎上，有必要增加額外關稅的產品。

In any case, to defend Trump's position a bit, it could be said that the US already had much higher tariffs in the past, during the 19th century, precisely the century in which the country became the world's leading power.

無論如何，為了給特朗普的立場辯護一下，可以說美國在過去的 19 世紀就已經徵收了高得多的關稅，而恰恰是在那個世紀，美國成為了世界頭號強國。

So, well, they wouldn't be so bad, would they?

那麼，他們也不會太壞，不是嗎？

Plus, with all the money raised, other taxes could be eliminated.

此外，有了籌集到的資金，還可以取消其他稅收。

Since Trump, for instance, has talked about completely abolishing the federal income tax.

比如，特朗普就曾表示要徹底廢除聯邦所得稅。

However, what you're not taking into account is that, during that time, the presence of the federal government in the economy was less than 2%, not 30% as it has now.

然而，你沒有考慮到的是，在那個時期，聯邦政府在經濟中的存在率不到 2%，而不是現在的 30%。

What's more, many economists such as Douglas Irwin have studied the matter and have concluded that these tariffs did not serve to protect the newly emerging US industry, but rather made it much less competitive.

更重要的是，許多經濟學家，如道格拉斯-歐文（Douglas Irwin），對此事進行了研究，得出的結論是，這些關稅並沒有起到保護美國新興產業的作用，反而使其競爭力大大降低。

Now, if one thing is clear, it's that the tariffs are going to raise more money for So the question is obvious, how does he plan to spend it?

現在，如果有一件事是明確的，那就是關稅將為他籌集更多資金，那麼問題就顯而易見了，他打算如何使用這些資金？

Trump is clear, he wants to lower taxes.

特朗普很清楚，他想要降低稅收。

In his last mandate, the Republican president already lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

共和黨總統在上任後已將企業稅率從 35% 下調至 21%。

This had very positive consequences.

這產生了非常積極的影響。

In fact, the GDP grew more than what the state stopped collecting.

事實上，國內生產總值的增長超過了國家停止徵收的部分。

Nevertheless, the debt skyrocketed and it looks like Trump plans to continue down this In other words, the US would become one of the countries with the lowest corporate tax in the world.

換句話說，美國將成為世界上企業稅最低的國家之一。

In the same vein, Trump has also proposed large tax breaks for companies that invest in improving their productivity.

同樣，特朗普還提議為投資提高生產力的公司提供大額稅收減免。

That is, as long as all these investments are made with American workers and equipment.

也就是說，只要所有這些投資都是由美國工人和設備完成的。

So your company wants to buy a more efficient machine from a European factory.

是以，貴公司想從一家歐洲工廠購買一臺更高效的機器。

Ah, sorry, you'll have to pay all the taxes there.

啊，對不起，你得支付那裡的所有稅款。

On the other hand, the now president-elect has proposed eliminating the taxation of overtime hours and tips received in the hospitality sector.

另一方面，現在的當選總統提議取消對酒店業的加班費和小費徵稅。

By the way, this was apparently such a popular idea that Kamala Harris copied it within two days of the Republican leader announcing it.

順便說一句，這個想法顯然很受歡迎，以至於卡馬拉-哈里斯在共和黨領袖宣佈這個想法的兩天內就複製了它。

Even so, popular doesn't always mean good.

即便如此，受歡迎並不總是意味著好。

To give you an idea, with this measure the state would lose 50% more revenue than with the corporate tax cut.

舉例來說，如果採取這項措施，州政府的收入損失將比企業減稅多 50%。

Specifically, $300 billion would be lost over 10 years.

具體來說，10 年內將損失 3,000 億美元。

And if the revenue hole wasn't already gaping, Trump also wants seniors' social security benefits to not be counted as income and therefore be exempt from taxation.

如果說收入缺口還不夠大的話，特朗普還希望老年人的社會保障福利不被算作收入，從而免於徵稅。

Conclusion?

結論？

Trump proposes a brutal increase of between 55 and 80% of public pensions, a figure similar to the entire GDP of entire countries such as Ukraine or Slovakia.

特朗普提議將公共養老金粗暴地提高 55% 至 80%，這一數字與烏克蘭或斯洛伐克等整個國家的全部 GDP 相近。

And if we add to all this a significant increase in defense spending, reinforcement of the border with Mexico and other smaller programs, the result is that Trump would send the public debt into the stratosphere.

如果再加上大幅增加國防開支、加固與墨西哥的邊境以及其他較小的項目，結果就是特朗普將把公共債務推向平流層。

Specifically, over the next 10 years, Trump proposes to lower taxes or raise government spending by $10 trillion, but the new tariffs would barely raise $2.7.

具體來說，在未來 10 年中，特朗普提議降低稅收或增加政府支出 10 萬億美元，但新關稅只能勉強增加 2.7 美元。

But now, doesn't Trump strongly criticize government spending?

但現在，特朗普不是強烈責備政府開支嗎？

Doesn't he accuse the Democrats of spending hand over fist?

他不是指責民主黨花錢大手大腳嗎？

Yes, he does.

是的，他是這樣想的。

For example, he wants to eliminate Biden's industry-boosting spending.

例如，他希望取消拜登的產業促進支出。

Yet, that would only bring in $0.7 trillion of the $7 trillion by which Trump will increase the deficit.

然而，在特朗普將增加的 7 萬億美元赤字中，這隻能帶來 0.7 萬億美元。

So it turns out, Trump does like public spending.

事實證明，特朗普確實喜歡公共開支。

What he doesn't like is public spending by Democrats.

他不喜歡的是民主黨人的公共開支。

Of course, Trump still has a secret weapon, his new best friend, Elon Musk.

當然，特朗普還有一個祕密武器，那就是他的新摯友埃隆-馬斯克。

Since his assassination attempt, Trump and Musk have been inseparable, thick as thieves.

自特朗普遇刺未遂以來，他和馬斯克就形影不離，密不可分。

The Tesla owner has not only publicly announced his support, but is also actively participating in his campaign, and has confirmed that he has been asked to lead a commission tasked with firing unproductive officials.

這位特斯拉車主不僅公開宣佈支持他，還積極參與他的競選活動，並證實他已被要求上司一個委員會，負責解僱不稱職的官員。

The idea is that he will repeat what he did at X, formerly Twitter, lay off half of the workers and keep everything running smoothly.

我們的想法是，他將重複在 X 公司（Twitter 前身）的做法，裁掉一半的員工，並保持一切順利運行。

Although, to say that X is running smoothly... well, we'll have to see.

不過，要說 X 的運行是否順利......那還得拭目以待。

On top of that, he also wants to eliminate all criteria of inclusiveness when hiring public servants.

除此之外，他還想在招聘公務員時取消所有包容性標準。

In other words, to put an end to policies that place some candidates above others, simply because they are women or belong to a racial minority group.

換句話說，就是要終止那些僅僅因為某些候選人是女性或屬於少數種族群體而將其置於其他候選人之上的政策。

To prioritize excellence above all else.

把卓越放在首位。

But let's be honest, this is the same thing that all politicians say.

但老實說，這是所有政客都會說的話。

That it's enough to cut the cowboys and a few silly policies to finance massive increases in public spending.

削減牛仔和一些愚蠢的政策，為大規模增加公共開支提供資金就足夠了。

And they are never, never right.

而且他們永遠永遠都不對。

Not even in the case of Javier Millet, who has ended up having to cut pensions and public aid.

即使是哈維爾-米萊也不例外，他最終不得不削減養老金和公共援助。

And take note, this isn't a criticism, but things as they are, budget holes are not corrected by just cutting a few slackers.

請注意，這並不是責備，而是就目前的情況而言，預算漏洞並不是削減幾個懶漢就能彌補的。

Nevertheless, not all economic policies have to do with taxes or public spending.

然而，並非所有經濟政策都與稅收或公共開支有關。

BEYOND THE DEFICIT Trump has proposed reviving an old idea of economist Milton Friedman, school vouchers.

超越赤字 特朗普提議重提經濟學家米爾頓-弗裡德曼的一個古老觀點--學校代金券。

The idea is very simple.

這個想法非常簡單。

Instead of assigning a school to each child, families receive a check to send their child to the school they see fit.

家庭不是為每個孩子指定學校，而是收到一張支票，將孩子送到他們認為合適的學校。

This can already be done by sending them to a private school, but in this case the family is paying twice, once for the private school and once for their place in the public school through taxes.

把他們送進私立學校就可以做到這一點，但在這種情況下，家庭要支付兩次費用，一次是私立學校的費用，一次是公立學校的稅費。

This idea is quite good, and we've already discussed it in a previous video that you can see here.

這個想法非常好，我們在之前的視頻中已經討論過，請點擊此處觀看。

Importantly, this model is already being tested in various parts of the US, from Los Angeles to North Carolina, and the scientific papers we've seen show quite positive results.

重要的是，從洛杉磯到北卡羅來納州，這種模式已經在美國各地進行了測試，我們看到的科學論文顯示了相當積極的成果。

In Los Angeles, for example, areas where there is competition between schools have resulted in students getting better grades and, more importantly, significantly increasing their likelihood of going to college.

以洛杉磯為例，在學校之間存在競爭的地區，學生的成績得到了提高，更重要的是，他們上大學的可能性大大增加。

In this way, Trump also intends to abolish the Department of Education.

這樣，特朗普還打算廢除教育部。

How much money would this save?

這能節省多少錢？

Well, enough to pay for the corporate tax being cut to 15%.

嗯，足夠支付公司稅減至 15%的費用了。

On the other hand, the Republican candidate wants to improve the lives of Americans through a massive deportation of illegal immigrants.

另一方面，共和黨候選人希望通過大規模驅逐非法移民來改善美國人的生活。

Not surprisingly, Trump talks about crime and drugs, but there are also three economic arguments.

毫不奇怪，特朗普會談到犯罪和毒品，但也有三個經濟論點。

The first is that immigrants consume a lot from the welfare state.

首先，移民消耗了大量的福利。

On this, there is not a lot of consensus and estimates vary too much.

在這一點上，沒有達成很多共識，估計值相差太大。

There are scientific articles that estimate that only immigrants without a high school education are negative, and others that only those with a university degree are positive.

有科學文章估計，只有未受過高中教育的移民才是負面的，還有一些文章認為，只有受過大學教育的移民才是正面的。

The second is that fewer immigrants will translate into lower inflation, pure supply and demand.

其次，移民減少會導致通貨膨脹率降低，這純粹是供求關係的問題。

If demand goes down because there are fewer immigrants consuming, prices go down.

如果因為消費移民減少而導致需求下降，價格就會下降。

What happens here is that Trump doesn't take into account that if immigrants leave, the labor supply also goes down and could even increase inflation.

現在的情況是，特朗普沒有考慮到，如果移民離開，勞動力供應也會減少，甚至會加劇通貨膨脹。

In fact, that is just what we've seen with other deportation programs within the United States, with housing prices going up when immigrants are kicked out because supply falls more than demand.

事實上，這正是我們在美國其他驅逐計劃中看到的情況，當移民被趕走時，房價會上漲，因為供不應求。

But there's still a third argument, that immigrants reduce the wages of the native-born workers.

但還有第三種說法，即移民降低了在地出生工人的工資。

And here there is a point.

這裡有一個問題。

Again, there's no great consensus, but the most commonly cited estimates do tend to find a negative impact on native workers without a high school diploma, particularly in the short term.

同樣，人們也沒有達成很大的共識，但最常引用的估計確實傾向於發現對沒有高中文憑的在地工人有負面影響，尤其是在短期內。

But of course, in the long run, immigrants also create businesses and jobs.

當然，從長遠來看，移民也能創造企業和就業機會。

They also make the best workers much more productive.

它們還能讓最優秀的工人提高工作效率。

Think of a senior engineer who is working part time in order to care for his young child.

想想一位高級工程師，他為了照顧年幼的孩子而兼職工作。

With immigration, he could leave his child in the care of a caregiver for very little money and go to work full time, doubling his salary.

有了移民，他就可以把孩子交給看護人照顧，只花很少的錢，就可以全職工作，工資翻倍。

And let's not forget the taxes he contributes to the public treasury.

別忘了他為國庫繳納的稅款。

So no matter whether you favor immigration or not, the US is not Sweden.

是以，無論您是否贊成移民，美國都不是瑞典。

In Sweden, immigration is a much bigger problem.

在瑞典，移民是一個更大的問題。

In any case, this is not the end of Donald Trump's plan.

無論如何，這都不是唐納德-特朗普計劃的終點。

Oil, the new goose that lays Uncle Sam's golden eggs.

石油，山姆大叔下金蛋的新鵝。

The president-elect wants to boost production by eliminating environmental regulations.

當選總統希望通過取消環境法規來提高產量。

Here, the Supreme Court justices he nominated may be his best ally.

在這方面，他提名的最高法院法官可能是他最好的盟友。

Because during this term, they have overturned the Chevron Doctrine, a court ruling that gave regulatory agencies a lot of power in interpreting laws.

因為在這一任期內，他們推翻了 "雪佛龍原則"（Chevron Doctrine），法院的這一裁決賦予了監管機構很大的法律解釋權。

Now Congress will have more tools for eliminating or simplifying these regulations.

現在，國會將有更多工具來取消或簡化這些法規。

And having said that, it's time to move on to the last block of Trump's economic proposals.

說到這裡，是時候繼續討論特朗普的最後一項經濟提案了。

Proposals that are gaining more and more presence in public discourse.

在公眾討論中越來越多的提案。

Monetary policy.

貨幣政策。

Despite the Republican president's nomination of Jerome Powell to head the Fed, the clashes have been constant.

儘管共和黨總統提名傑羅姆-鮑威爾擔任美聯儲主席，但衝突一直不斷。

Trump wants low interest rates to finance his huge deficit.

特朗普希望通過低利率為其鉅額赤字融資。

And Powell has a duty to keep rates high so that inflation is fully under control.

鮑威爾有責任將利率維持在高位，以便充分控制通脹。

And this is just what he's doing.

而這正是他正在做的。

The Fed remains an independent institution, something Trump is not amused about.

美聯儲仍然是一個獨立機構，特朗普對此並不感到高興。

This is one of economists' biggest concerns with Trump's new term, ending the Fed's independence and once again letting inflation rise unchecked.

這是經濟學家們對特朗普新任期的最大擔憂之一，即結束美聯儲的獨立性，再次讓通脹肆無忌憚地上升。

However, Trump's monetary policy doesn't end here.