美国250周年：最高法院裁决重塑经济规则

Bloomberg Audio Studios podcasts, radio, news.

Brad Stone.

Stacy Vanek Smith.

Happy 4th of July. [music]

It's a big one, a lot of candles, 250.

That is a lot of candles,

[music]

and a cause for celebration. A lot of countries do not make it this far. [laughter] So, happy [music] birthday to us. Time to celebrate.

Celebrations, fireworks, musical shows, parades, and of course,

[music]

some drama. There are dueling government agencies trying to plan the big 250, and we've got Businessweek's Laura Bliss helping us break [music] it down.

Yes, indeed. And beyond the celebrations, of course, Brad, birthdays often a time of reflection, [music] reassessment, change. And this week, very fittingly, we got some big Supreme Court decisions that will change [music] the way our country operates in a lot of ways. We've got economist Martha Gimbel here to talk about that. And, [music] you know, to help us look at this birthday and where we are, where the US is at 250.

This is [music] Everybody's Business from Bloomberg Businessweek. I'm Brad Stone in for Max Chafkin.

And I'm Stacy Vanek Smith. [music] Today on the show, political parties divided over the party, new laws, old divisions, and one [music] very big birthday.

Come for the news and stay for the fireworks.

Brad, there are moments when I sort of start to feel like I've been covering business and economics for too long. For instance, all this news around America's 250th birthday, think of it like, what if the US were a company? Like, how would it be doing right now? Is it a good investment? Are we heading in a good direction? Would I invest in America?

Well, that direction changed a little bit this week, right? We got some major Supreme Court decisions, including one about Federal Reserve independence, birthright citizenship, campaign spending. I guess you could think of those as sort of changes to the corporate bylaws.

Yeah. Okay, yes, that would be changes to the corporate bylaws. I appreciate that you're on this train with me.

[laughter]

I was hoping that since it is our birthday and it is a time of reflection, that we could call a kind of meeting of the board for the country and you know, step back and evaluate how America the startup is doing. But of course, you cannot just have two people on a board, that is not quorum.

Right. So, we called up economist Martha Gimbel, executive director of the Yale Budget Lab, a former senior advisor to the White House Council of Economic Advisors. Martha, welcome to Everybody's Business.

Thank you so much for having me.

Okay, Martha, just very generally to start out, if you looked at the US as a startup, what is your assessment of America Inc.? Like, how are we doing? Would you buy stock in America?

So, first of all, I do feel like I have to start off with just like a pro forma like USA, USA, USA. Like we're, you know,

Yes.

we're here, 250th, the whole thing.

it.

So, if you're thinking about the US as a startup, it's been phenomenally successful, right? If you put money into the United States in 1776, 1812, 1860, you know, name a year in American history, you're doing pretty well. Now, of course, the difference between a startup and a country is, you know, probably most financial advisors would say to you, like, "Okay, you and your ancestors made a bet here, and it really paid off.

But at some point you have to diversify your portfolio. And so you kind of have to decide, am I going to keep uh YOLOing everything into America, or am I going to YOLO into something else? Cuz you can't do the diversification that you might if you don't like a standard investment in a startup.

I I love this metaphor, and let's continue it until we end up in a in a pothole, [laughter] but uh one of these Supreme Court rulings, they were they were all consequential, but one really does sort of change the bylaws, as we were discussing, the uh Trump versus Slaughter, where the president got increased power to remove the heads of independent agencies at will. A real a real alteration to the balance of power between the between the between the Congress and the executive branch.

You know, Martha, how significant a decision do you think that was?

I mean, I think it's pretty substantial. I think the biggest thing is the probability of increased uh policy swings between different administrations, uh which, you know, with the independent agencies, you were sort of hoping not to have in the same way. I think this gets at this sort of broader question around predictability in the United States. You know, one of the things that we know that makes for a really strong investing environment is predictability, rule of law, things like that.

Um the Budget Lab, where I'm the executive director, did some research on this in 2024 that was basically saying investors were underrating one, how much political risk had increased in the United States, and then also the probability that political risk would increase further. Um and that if that did increase, it was going to make the United States a less appealing environment for investors. I want to be clear that I'm not saying that because of this, you know, SCOTUS decision everyone's going to pull their money out of the United States, but it's, you know, as my mother used to say, little drops of water, little grains of sand, you know, kind of make things less predictable.

I mean, there was one notable exception uh to this ruling, which was the Federal Reserve. Obviously, Trump tried to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook uh for alleged mortgage fraud. Um that did not go forward. So, the Fed maintained its independence. How significant is that part of it?

I think we're, you know, all economists kind of breathed a sigh of relief there. I do think it's not clear. I am not a lawyer um officially. Uh but I do think uh it's not clear legally why the Fed should be different except for the fact that, you know, the Fed is the Supreme Court's uh large adult son and kind of gets to be put in this special category. But, you know, the independence of the Fed is something that a lot of us really worry about.

It has helped keep inflation expectations anchored. That makes fighting inflation much, much easier. Um and so, you know, leaving aside the legal basis for that decision, I think many of us are very grateful for it.

Now, it was a close call. That was a 5-4 vote. Uh another very close call was around birthright citizenship. Um now that was a defeat for the Trump administration. It was it was 6-3, although Brett Kavanaugh was kind of uh on the fence, it seemed a little bit. When you think about the relationship between birthright citizenship and immigration and the labor market, how impactful do you think this decision is for the economy of America Inc.?

I mean, immigration makes a huge difference in how successful the United States has been, right? There's an amazing quote from someone and I'm forgetting who they are, so I apologize for not attributing them, but basically saying that an advantage the United States has over China is that China has a billion people whose talent it can draw from. We have 7 billion, right? We have the world. We can say like, "Come on over here, become American, um and innovate and be productive here, and then we will benefit from all of the economic growth that you and your descendants drive."

I think many of us were surprised the birth rate citizenship case was as close as it was, but I do think that immigration has made a huge difference in America the startup and how successful it was, which by the way is similar to many, you know, like actual startups that are driven by immigrants who come here and start new businesses. Um Abhi Gupta at the Budget Lab just put out a report on how, you know, even if immigration policy changes in the next presidential term, we have long-run lowered productivity growth in this country because we're losing out

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。