Trump’s investment claims – Will the customs tariff enhance the American economy?

US President Donald Trump may have described his favorite word in the dictionary. But when it comes to duties, investment in business should be close.

As of last month, he said that more than 12 trillion dollars (8.8 million pounds) may be “practically committed” in its hour. He said: “Nobody saw numbers like us,” and attributed to his agenda from customs tariffs, tax discounts, and the abolition of restrictions in making the difference.

If this is true, this number will be really amazing, and perhaps approximately 4 Americans in the total private investment that the United States has reported over the past year.

This is the sudden evading business to spend on the stage for a new golden economic era as Trump claims, or is it a theater?

First things: It is too early to have clear data to assess his claims. The United States government is publishing statistics on business investments only every three months.

It appears from January to March, which reflects two months of Trump’s duration, a strong leap in business investment, although that analysts said partially due to the data granted by Boeing earlier.

Stories and other scanning indicate that Trump’s effect on investment is more gradual than he claimed.

“We have no data at this stage, and almost all the information we have is most likely for the investment projects that were planned and requested last year,” said economist Nick Bloom, a professor at Stanford University whose work is considered in the impact of uncertainty on business investment.

“I think that investing business has decreased slightly, not significantly … in the first place because uncertainty is very high and this will stop it.”

A good example of the Swiss pharmaceutical company Roch, which has announced its plans to invest $ 50 billion in the United States over the past five years in April.

Some of the projects listed in the amount were already in the business.

Executive managers also warned that some of Trump’s ideas – especially a proposal to repair drug pricing – could display their plans.

“The pharmaceutical industry will need to review its expenses, including investments,” the company said.

Trump usually makes his case indicate the investment promises provided by prominent companies such as Apple and Hyundai.

The White House keeps Running Among these advertisements, but at the beginning of June, it made a total of new investments by about $ 5.3 trillion – less than half of the amount that Trump cited.

Even this number is amplified.

Nearly a third of the 62nd investment in the list includes plans that were at least in part in business before Trump took office. For example:

• Stelantis, on the list of a $ 5 billion plan to reopen a factory in Belvidere, Illinois, initially this promise in 2023.

• Other obligations include elements that are not considered investments at all – such as Apple’s spending of $ 500 billionWhich includes taxes and salaries that are already paid to workers in the company.

In fact, as of mid -May, the new investment caused by advertisements is likely to be approximately $ 134 billion, according to the Goldman Sachs analysis.

This amount has shrunk to less than 30 billion dollars, not including investments supported by foreign governments, as soon as researchers are considered in the risk that some projects fail to achieve, or may have occurred in any case.

“Although there is little economically, such increases will decrease to the recent headlines,” they wrote.

When clicking on the numbers, Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, dismantled fears that the administration’s claims do not match reality.

“The Trump administration uses a multi -faceted approach to paying investment to the United States … and no irrational creation can refute it to bear fruit,” he said in a statement.

BBC called more than twenty companies with investments in the White House list.

Many did not respond or refer to the previous data.

Others admitted that working on some of their projects precedes the current administration.

Exaggeration by politicians and companies is barely unexpected.

Martin Chorzma, his oldest colleague at the Petersen International Economy Institute, says the Trump administration’s willingness to radically intervene in the economy, with definitions and other changes, gave companies a reason to pump their plans in ways to spin the president.

He says: “The company that issues an advertisement is a way to obtain some of the current benefits, without necessarily kept for those (spending exposure) if the situation changes,” he says. “There is a strong incentive for companies to provide a large number as possible.”

This does not mean that Trump’s policies do not make a difference.

Stephen Farley, the global healthcare worldwide, says that the tariff threats were “a catalyst” for pharmaceutical companies to plan more manufacturing in the United States, a major source of sector profits.

But he adds, there are limits to what the threats can accomplish.

Medicines investments are to be revealed over time – a decade in some cases – in a sector that was about to grow anyway.

They came from companies that sell branded drugs – not prefabricated drugs and medications on which many Americans depend in China and India.

Mr. Farley also warned that the sector’s investments may be in a long -term danger, given the uncertainty about the government’s approach to definitions, drug pricing and scientific research.

In general, many analysts expect investment growth in the United States to slow down this year due to uncertainty in politics.

German economist Guterres of Washington University says Trump is right to want to enhance investment in the United States, but he believes that his focus on global competition violates the problem.

His own business has found that low investment is partially due to the unification of the industry. Now some large companies dominate the sectors, there is a lower incentive to invest to compete.

In addition, the types of investment companies are usually cheaper elements such as programs instead of machinery and factories.

Professor Guterres says the definitions are unlikely to address these issues.

“The way it is done and the type of tools they use is not the best way to achieve this goal. It really takes it to get this.”