Many around the world are surprised at how little attention the economy is receiving in US President George W. Bush's re-election campaign. But I am not surprised: if I were Bush, the last thing I would want to talk about is the economy.?
Yet many people look at America's economy, even over these past three and half years, with some envy. After all, annual economic growth -- at an average rate of 2.5 percent -- may have been markedly slower than during the Clinton years, but it still looks strong compared to Europe's anemic 1 percent growth.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
But these statistics mask a glaring fact: the average US family is worse off than it was three and half years ago. Median real income has fallen by over US$1,500 in real terms, with American families being squeezed as wages lag behind inflation and key household expenses soar. In short, all that growth benefited only those at the top of the income distribution, the same group that had done so well over the previous 30 years and that benefited most from Bush's tax cut.
For example, some 45 million Americans today have no health insurance, up by 5.2 million from 2000. Families lucky enough to have health insurance face annual premiums that have nearly doubled, to US$7,500. US families also face increasing job insecurity. This is the first time since the early 1930s that there has been a net loss of jobs over the span of an entire presidential administration.
Bush supporters rightly ask: is Bush really to blame for this? Wasn't the recession already beginning when he took office?
The resounding answer is that Bush is to blame. Every president inherits a legacy. The economy was entering a downturn when Bush took office, but president Bill Clinton also left a huge budget surplus -- 2 percent of GDP -- a pot of money with which to finance a robust recovery. But Bush squandered that surplus, converting it into a deficit of 5 percent of GDP through tax cuts for the rich.
The productivity growth that was sustained through the downturn presented both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity: if the economy was well managed, the incomes of Americans could continue to rise as they had done in the 1990s. The challenge: to manage the economy so that growth would be robust enough to create the new jobs required by new entrants to the labor force. Bush failed the challenge, and the US lost the opportunity because of his wrong choices.
True, the economy was stimulated a little bit by Bush's tax cuts; it was probably stronger in the short run (though arguably not in the long run) than it would have been had there been no tax cuts. But there were other policies that would have provided far more stimulus at far less cost. Bush's objective, however, was not to maintain the strength of the economy; it was to push forward a tax agenda that shifted the burden away from those who could best afford to bear it.
Bush's failed policies have not only cost the economy dearly; they have left the economy in a far weaker position going forward. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office agrees that even without Bush's new expenditure initiatives and tax proposals, costing trillions of dollars, the deficit will not be eliminated in the foreseeable future -- or even cut in half, as Bush has promised.
Expenditures on which America's future economic health depends -- on infrastructure, education, health, and technology -- will be crowded out, jeopardizing long-term growth.
Because fiscal policy did not stimulate the economy, a greater burden was placed on monetary policy. Lower interest rates worked (a little), but for the most part by encouraging households to refinance their mortgages, not by stimulating investment. The increased indebtedness of households is already leading to higher bankruptcy rates, and will likely dampen the recovery.
National debt, too, has risen sharply. The huge trade deficit provides the spectacle of the world's richest country borrowing almost US$2 billion a day from abroad, contributing to the weak dollar and representing a major source of global uncertainty.?
There might be some hope for the future if Bush owned up to his mistakes and changed course. But no: Bush refuses to take responsibility for the economy, just as his administration fails to take responsibility for its failures in Iraq. Last year, having seen that its tax cuts for the rich had failed to stimulate the economy as promised, the administration refused to revise its strategies, but instead just prescribed more of the same medicine. It now promises to make those tax cuts permanent. The real risk is that this is one promise that Bush, if re-elected, will try to keep.
At the end of August, I joined nine other American Nobel Prize winners in economics in signing an open letter to the US public. It is hard to get any two economists -- let alone two Nobel Prize winners -- to agree on anything. But in this case our concerns were so grave as to overcome any disagreements.
We wrote: "President Bush and his administration have embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation. .... The differences between President Bush and John Kerry with respect to leadership on the economy are wider than in any other Presidential election in our experience. President Bush believes that tax cuts benefiting the most wealthy Americans are the answer to almost every economic problem."
Here, as elsewhere, Bush is dead wrong, and too dogmatic to admit it.
Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics at Columbia University and a member of the Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization. He received the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS