The impending retirement of US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has produced worldwide paeans of praise for the great man, balanced by some reservations about the legacy he leaves of a property price bubble. There is also a strong feeling that, having warned of the dangers of "irrational exuberance" way back in 1996, he subsequently became a cheerleader for the dot.com boom.
But one of the big blots on Greenspan's copy book is surely the blessing he gave to the huge package of tax cuts unveiled by the Bush administration during the first term. Given the almost divine status Greenspan had already by the turn of the century, this very right-wing Republican must have known full well what he was doing.
Not to put too fine a point upon it, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, a man revered to an extent that mere mortals of politicians could never aspire, was prepared to sanction an economically irresponsible and socially divisive program of tax cuts aimed unashamedly at the rich.
The main purpose of these tax cuts was to reward the supporters of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, and make the very rich even richer. It was done in full knowledge that, if it came to the crunch -- and budget deficit duly got completely out of hand -- the Republican response would be, not to repeal the tax cuts, but to demand reductions in government spending directed principally at the poor and the middle class.
Almost unbelievably -- I say almost, because few rationalizations are beyond the chutzpah of right-wing evangelicals in the US -- the tired old 1980s supply-side explanation was dragged out of the archives. Such tax cuts were justified because they encouraged enterprise, boosted productivity and had a "trickle down" effect on the less fortunate citizens beneath. And, despite all the evidence to the contrary, they were even justified given their "alleged" miraculous impact on the economy's paying for themselves.
Similar arguments were adduced in the UK in 1988 when the then UK chancellor of the exchequer Nigel Lawson introduced a tax reduction package. But in both the US and the UK, the budgetary arithmetic showed that the cuts never paid for themselves in new revenue. They were a cost to the budget, and that was that.
Yet if the Conservative Party in the UK today have their way, we shall go down that route yet again. Notwithstanding the growing concern in Britain about the rising budget deficit and the threat to the success of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown's famous "golden rule" (ie, balancing the current budget over the course of an economic cycle), and despite the obvious view from all opinion polls that the voters are still dissatisfied with the state of the public sector, here are the rival claimants for the leadership of the UK Conservative Party, David Davies and David Cameron, going on about the need for tax cuts.
There is something seriously inconsistent about an opposition that complains about "black holes" in the public finances but still promises tax cuts, but it is probably not an inconsistency that their Republican friends in America would worry about.
There is a deeper concern here though. Until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the "capitalist" world always felt some sense of constraint, or even decency, about the degree to which it was prepared to push the boundaries of its own avarice.
Such constraints have all but disappeared, and the results can be seen in the pervading "culture" and the ethos of the media. Few people worry these days about the "redistribution of wealth and income." British Prime Minister Tony Blair seemed surprised that BBC TV interviewer Jeremy Paxman even raised the subject a few years ago.
Blair, a soi-disant Labor prime minister, has no problems with the filthy rich. The general public itself goes along with all this. They may want to win the lottery or succeed on programs such as Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, but they bear an increasingly unequal and squalid society with a patient shrug.
Or am I missing something?
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS