In a political environment skewed by fake news and “alternative facts,” the real impact of President Donald Trump’s policies is easily obscured. At the recent Tarnopol Dean’s Lecture Series on the Trump administration and the economy, Wharton experts offered their unvarnished take on the impact of these policies on the capital markets, the dollar, economic growth and job creation — and backed them with analysis based on data.
After closing above 20,000 for the first time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been giving back some of its gains of late amid a flurry of Trump mandates: escalation of a trade war with Mexico, anchored by a 20% tariff on its goods; making good on a promise to exit the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal in Asia; and instituting a temporary immigration ban on seven mainly Muslim countries that could hurt the quality of the U.S. workforce — especially in Silicon Valley — among others. Initially, the Dow was buoyed by Trump’s proposal to substantially cut corporate taxes, roll back many regulations and spend on infrastructure.
“Investors and businesses very much like the Republican agenda. Notice I didn’t say the Trump agenda,” says Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel. “Why do they like the Republican agenda? Lower corporate taxes, less regulation, lower taxes on interest and dividend income. All that is very, very good for investors.”
Siegel lays out the bull case: “If there’s a significant corporate tax cut, and most people expect there to be one, that could add 10% to earnings in and of itself. So that alone, you could say, could give 10% to the stock market. In addition, you have a cut back in regulations, which is something again that both investors and businesses want, that could be another boost that some people say could be worth 10%.” He notes that those projections do not even include potential gains from infrastructure spending.
“If there’s a significant corporate tax cut … that could add 10% to earnings in and of itself. So that alone, you could say, could give 10% to the stock market.” –Jeremy Siegel
However, U.S. stocks have been whipsawed lately by Trump’s other orders. “What the market doesn’t like is most of the Trump agenda that is not part of the Republican agenda — clearly, big tariffs on imports, such moves as restricting immigration in a significant way, currency wars — anything like that is very anti-Republican,” Siegel says. The market has moved up “cautiously” because it is yet unsure whether Trump will follow the Republican path all the way. “I’m not going to put all my marbles there yet because anything can happen under Trump.”
The bear case is that the economy will take a big drubbing if trade wars break out. Siegel says that many Republicans believe the high Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the 1930s that taxed thousands of imported goods led to the Great Depression. While Siegel himself — along with most macroeconomists — does not agree with that premise (believing the cause was monetary collapse and the Federal Reserve’s inaction), if protectionism does break out globally, it would be disastrous depending on its magnitude. “If there is a trade war, the market would react extremely negatively,” he says. “We’d be down 10% to 15%.”
Coming Trade War?
Wharton international management professor Mauro Guillen says protectionism is a “terrible idea.” Trade barriers have been enacted in the recent past, such as President Nixon levying a 10% tariff across the board in the early 1970s. “Every time you’re introducing protectionism, you’re hurting the consumer.”
There’s also the issue of substitution. If a 20% tariff on Mexican goods was put in place, it is not certain that people would automatically buy more products that are made in America. “Some consumers and companies will say, instead of buying from Mexico, I’m going to buy from an American-based producer, or they could go to China or Indonesia, or Costa Rica,” Guillen adds. “It’s not clear how the issue is going to play out.”
Moreover, many U.S. companies will have to scramble to adapt quickly to a major shift in rules. “Many other companies that source components from China will be caught off guard,” Guillen says. “They’ve been doing business, they’ve been making investments, they’ve been making decisions for a long time assuming a certain set of rules. Now, if those rules change overnight, they’re going to find themselves in a very difficult situation.”
Guillen further questions the rationale behind choosing to launch a trade war with Mexico, whose exports make up about 10% to 12% of the U.S. trade deficit. “Why pick a fight with Mexico? … The problem is broader than that.” He also points out that the 18% devaluation in the Mexican peso — since Trump won the election — could offset the 20% proposed tariff. Overall, Guillen says the larger question for Trump and his policies is this: “What are you trying to accomplish?”
When it comes to trade, Siegel explains that Trump’s point is to level the playing field. “We let their goods in, but they don’t let our goods in. Or they put much more restrictions on our exports than we do on their exports. It is true if we get those countries to accept more of our exports, actually both of us would be better off. … We didn’t push hard enough” to get into their markets. However, Guillen points out these trade imbalances might be true for China, but not Mexico. “There is free trade both ways.”
There is talk of instituting a “border adjustment” to further boost U.S. trade, says Siegel. The rule exempts exports of U.S. companies from taxes, but also reduces the deductions they can take on imports to lower taxable income. “This is a huge subsidy to exports, a huge tax on imports and every economist says that will cause the dollar to be stronger.”
Siegel says some models see the dollar appreciating by as much as the actual corporate tax rate if the full terms of the border adjustment is adopted and the impact would be “mammoth.” Since the U.S. still imports more than it exports, he believes the net impact of this move will be to boost revenue. U.S. companies that make goods domestically and sell them abroad will be winners while big importers like Walmart are the losers.
“The EU did not figure out exactly when to stop [centralizing decisions] and where to let in enough [national] decision-making.” –Mauro Guillen
The dollar could appreciate by about 25% if the corporate tax rate fell to 20%, and the real value of imports and exports will be unaffected as exchange rates fluctuate, adds Kent Smetters, Wharton professor of business economics and public policy who was deputy assistant secretary for economic policy under President George W. Bush. (Siegel disagrees because he says it does not take into account global capital flows.)
“But here’s the issue. Even though this creates a level playing field with France and other European countries that have a territorial VAT [value added tax], getting that through the WTO [World Trade Organization] — that will be the fight,” Smetters says. Some European companies get a VAT refund.
Smetters says that back then, the Clinton administration instituted its own form of border adjustment, which the Bush administration inherited. However, the lawyer-stocked WTO ruled that it was illegal, he adds. “The lawyers understand statutory incidents” and have less insight into economic policies.
European Tensions
Europe is facing some deep divisions over economic and immigration policies as well. “Differences in opinion are getting bigger and bigger,” Guillen says. “On top of that comes Brexit [British exit from the European Union] but the most worrying is you do have populist parties, and their [support] is growing” in the upcoming European elections. These parties tend to be anti-immigrant and favor leaving the EU. Add to the conflagration the Italian banking crisis, a worsening situation in Greece and a youth jobless rate in some European nations of 45%.
At least, the people who voted for Brexit got one thing right. “There’s this dogma in Brussels [EU headquarters] that more integration in Europe is the solution to every problem. I personally believe that’s not the case,” Guillen says. “The EU did not figure out exactly when to stop [centralizing decisions] and where to let in enough [national] decision-making.” Sharing one currency — over half of EU members use the euro — complicates the matter.
However, Siegel believes no country will be leaving the Eurozone – the group that shares the currency. “If Greece didn’t leave the euro, no one’s leaving the euro. The idea is ludicrous that these [populist] parties in Italy are going to lead them out of the euro. The Italians remember the Italian lira [which at one point was trading at 2,500 to the U.S. dollar].” He notes that “if it weren’t for the immigration issue, there wouldn’t be Brexit.”
Immigration Reform
In the U.S., illegal immigration was a key issue for the Trump campaign. Trump has pledged to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico to stem the flow of undocumented workers and somehow make Mexico also pay for it. But an analysis by Smetters actually shows that deporting these workers — estimated between 11 million and 12 million overall — would hurt the U.S. economy.
“Undocumented workers tend to take on lower wage jobs. … That forces native-born workers to, in fact, trade up in terms of their education, in terms of their skillset.” –Kent Smetters
Trump’s plan assumes that if these workers were deported, native-born workers would take over these jobs. “That’s just simply not empirically true,” Smetters says. “When you export undocumented workers, those [typically low-skilled] jobs really aren’t replaced by native born workers” but by automation.
Moreover, the presence of undocumented workers raises the wages of those who can legally work in the U.S. “Undocumented workers tend to take on lower wage jobs that don’t require English and that don’t require as much social skills. That forces native-born workers to, in fact, trade up in terms of their education, in terms of their skillset.”
Smetters adds that while undocumented workers tend to have lower skill levels, a third of legal immigrants have college degrees. Guillen says immigration overall drives innovation, with immigrants launching 24% of all tech ventures in the U.S. over the past two decades. “That speaks volumes about the dynamism of immigrants at the high end and low end.”
Smetters does see Trump softening his stance on immigration once he builds his long-promised Mexican wall. “If he gets that political win … everything will be more negotiable.”
Ironically, the Trump proposal that could get plenty of political headwinds might be the issue of infrastructure spending. Wharton Dean Geoffrey Garrett, who moderated the talk, surmised that hardline Republicans wouldn’t want to run up the deficit while Democrats wouldn’t want to help a major Trump initiative.
Smetters says one answer is to focus on repairing existing infrastructure instead of building new ones. “Repairs have the highest ROI [return on investment],” he says, noting that more than 400 Pennsylvania bridges need inspection in the next two years. If they fall into disrepair, “the disruption to transportation there could be very large.”
Join The Discussion
6 Comments So Far
Anonymous
A very amateurish analysis and by Wharton. The real reason there can even be real sustainable growth in the first place is to institute (or threaten) policies that will bring back jobs to America. The only way US economy can start growing again is to bring back jobs. This will spur on the secondary markets. Trump’s agenda is the only one that will be able to do that. The rest of the analysis is simply academic of lower taxes. Cold and hard decisions are required. It is wishful thinking to suggest that the economy can have sustainable growth without trade wars.
Dave Woods
The last thing we want is to bring back jobs as we knew them. With our relatively small US population, we want to help create the integration and project management roles of the future, and open our borders to create win-win relationships for service and trade roles, which we clearly need.
Je Ya
I would like to respond because you are a Professor and assume you are a US Citizen.
President Trump, your alumni, never wants to star a trade war. He always wants a fair trade。for example, if a country charges US products 70% tarrif but US charges theirs zero tarrif, who started trade war? Trump wants to charge 70% tarrif to match theirs, is this a fair trade or trade war? If your answer is latter, it only tells that you are not US citizen, or a US traitor, or the other country’s spy. Am I right? I am not a professor but a normal US citizen who know right and wrong.
Je Ya
Without logics or with twisted mind to force US citizens to believe you is why Hilary lost and Democratic Party lost in entire country legal systems from President, supremium court judge, senate, house, governors and there will be more and more loses to Democratic Party. If you want to win back, first you must love America from your heart. We do not see it from any Democratic leaders and members. Love is not from your mouth, is from your heart and action. You do not love America but Trump does. This article you wrote is another evidence that you do not love America! We see it crystal clear.
Edward Dodson
One of the great statements in defense of free trade was written in the late 19th century by the American political economist Henry George. However, his analysis went far deeper than to merely point out the counter-productive impact of tariffs, quotas and other such restrictions. George spent the last three decades of his life fighting against landed (i.e., rentier) privilege. Under the conditions then existing (little changed today) the benefits of free trade would be captured by the rentiers as increases in the asking price for land, natural resources and land-like assets (i.e., those best described as “natural monopolies,” such as the broadcast spectrum).
Yes, we do need comprehensive restructuring of how government at all levels raises revenue. Reduction in the tax rate imposed on the value of actual capital goods (i.e., buildings, machinery, technologies) is the right public policy. Reduction in the tax rate imposed on income earned producing goods or providing services is also the right public policy. We want to encourage investment in capital goods and in the delivery of high quality services. Taxes on these assets and activities imposes significant deadweight losses on economic output.
Rents, on the other hand, result from aggregate investment in public infrastructure and amenities. As economists generally acknowledge, the taxation of rents not only imposes zero deadweight loss on output, the exact opposite occurs. A near-100% tax on the potential annual rental value of locations and other natural monopolies makes it financially expensive to hold such assets out of production. Land parcels in towns and cities would very quickly be developed to highest, best use. Speculation in land would no longer divert large amounts of financial reserves from more productive use.
Jacquie Kangas
Image and brand do matter. First impressions count for embedded impressions. The first four paragraphs of this article warn potential readers not to waste their time reading any further. It is fake news.
Fake News and Alternative Facts
Let’s be perfectly clear which outlets are sprouting fake news: Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, ABC, and NBC, and late comer, Knowledge at Wharton, who daily skew and obscure the real news.
Market Giving Back Some of its Gains
Since President Trump’ inauguration, market capitalization has increased by over $3 trillion. Fortunes have been made in that short time and businesses have benefited; albeit, all intelligent people know it will turn. To suggest that the market is giving back some of its gains amid a flurry of Trump mandates is absurd. His mandates have been alive and well since he first stepped out on to the hustings two years ago. The odd daily losses don’t even register on a gain of over $3 trillion.
Trade With Mexico
The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico at the end of 2016 was an astonishing $63 billion. Mexicans living in the U.S. sent $25 billion in U.S remittances to Mexico in 2015. The tally for 2016 is expected to be over $28 billion. The cost of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is estimated to be $113 billion a year. Most of those illegal immigrants are from Mexico. So does a small part of the increase in the market have anything to do with new trade and immigration treatment for Mexico. Absolutely. Is it imperative that the U.S.’s relationship with Mexico change. Absolutely.
Escalation of a Trade War with Mexico?
There is no trade war with Mexico. The policies to capture President Trump’s initiatives haven’t even been finalized yet.
Trans-Pacific Partnership
If your “academics” had bothered to read the, thankfully, now defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership, they would understand that it would have been an expansion of NAFTA and one-way trade and job losses out of America. More significantly, they would have understood that loose and open wording around human rights and foreign, oversight committees would have resulted in loss of American sovereignty, key issues that are tearing apart the EU.
Temporary Immigration Ban Could Hurt the Quality of the U.S. Workforce, particularly Silicon Valley?
The temporary immigration ban (blocked by lower-court judges who should have no jurisdiction over immigration) is a proposed ninety-day moratorium on immigration from seven Muslim countries to give the Trump Administration time to work out a common-sense and fair policy for the benefit of Americans and to keep them safe. The list of countries is the same list that the Obama Administration used for the same purposes. The countries include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
In 2012, there were only 781,235 U.S. residents who were born in these countries – just 2% of all immigrants – and most of them immigrated long ago, so the outcry over a 90-day restriction is nothing short of overblown, agenda-driven, cry-me-a-river, political angling.
Is Knowledge at Wharton seriously attempting to have us believe that a 90-day ban on immigration from these countries will hurt the quality of the U.S. workforce, particularly Silicon Valley. Libya? Somalia? Sudan? Yemen? 90 days? Are you kidding us? I challenge this author to come up with how many recent immigrants from these countries are in significant jobs in Silicon Valley. I have no doubt that he/she will find out that most of any recent immigrants or guest workers in Silicon Valley come from India, a country equally intent on controlling unvetted Muslim immigration.
The truth, of course, is that an end to immigration from any of these seven countries won’t have the slightest adverse consequences on the American workforce, generally, or Silicon Valley. The truth is that Silicon Valley is afraid that any immigration or visa restrictions might cut into its ability to pay guest workers far less than they should be paid or that they would have to pay American workers.
Immigrants from these countries are far more likely to suck up taxpayers’ funds in the form of welfare payments; and as has been shown in EU studies, the reliance on welfare extends and even grows in future generations.
The stock market has risen on anticipation of the return of jobs and manufacturing to the U.S. buoyed by actual business deals and initiatives struck since Donald Trump was elected, massive, impending tax cuts for businesses and individuals, the elimination of extraneous, bureaucratic and extremely costly regulations, a conducive U.S. business environment for both entrepreneurs and larger companies, the repatriation of overseas U.S. funds, the potential for a win/win trade relationships with Mexico and other countries, an efficient, fair, and profitable healthcare system, etc. — all Trump initiatives. Mexico will eventually come to the table to work out a win/win trade deal. It has no choice; it relies on the U.S.
Investors and Businesses like the Republican Agenda
So says professor of finance, Jeremy Siegal, who is cowardly quick to point out that he’s talking about the Republican Agenda not the Trump Agenda, then rattles off — you’ve guessed it — the Trump Agenda. Has he ever run a business himself, I wonder.
Summary
The first four paragraphs of this article warns that the article is highly likely to be biased, lopsided, unbalanced, selective, inaccurate, and far below the standards one expects from an academic institution. Accordingly I have elected not to read any more of it.