After a hard-fought election campaign, costing well in excess of US$2 billion, it seems to many observers that not much has changed in US politics: US President Barack Obama is still in office, the Republicans still control the House of Representatives, and the Democrats still have a majority in the Senate. With the US facing a “fiscal cliff,” automatic tax increases and spending cuts at the start of next year that will likely drive the economy into recession unless bipartisan agreement on an alternative fiscal path is reached, could there be anything worse than continued political gridlock?
In fact, the election had several salutary effects — beyond showing that unbridled corporate spending could not buy an election, and that demographic changes in the US might doom Republican extremism. The Republicans’ explicit campaign of disenfranchisement in some states — like Pennsylvania, where they tried to make it more difficult for African-Americans and Latinos to register to vote — backfired: Those whose rights were threatened were motivated to turn out and exercise them. In Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and tireless warrior for reforms to protect ordinary citizens from banks’ abusive practices, won a seat in the Senate.
Some of former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s advisers seemed taken aback by Obama’s victory: Was the election not supposed to be about economics? They were confident that US citizens would forget how the Republicans’ deregulatory zeal had brought the economy to the brink of ruin, and that voters had not noticed how their intransigence in Congress had prevented more effective policies from being pursued in the wake of the 2008 crisis. Voters, they assumed, would focus only on the current economic malaise.
The Republicans should not have been caught off-guard by US citizens’ interest in issues like disenfranchisement and gender equality.
While these issues strike at the core of a country’s values — of what we mean by democracy and limits on government intrusion into individuals’ lives — they are also economic issues. As I explain in my book The Price of Inequality, much of the rise in US economic inequality is attributable to a government in which the rich have disproportionate influence — and use that influence to entrench themselves. Obviously, issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage have large economic consequences as well.
In terms of US economic policy for the next four years, the main cause for post-election celebration is that measures have been avoided that would have pushed it closer to recession, increased inequality, imposed further hardship on the elderly, and impeded access to healthcare for millions of the population.
Beyond that, here is what Americans should hope for: a strong “jobs” bill — based on investments in education, healthcare, technology, and infrastructure — that would stimulate the economy, restore growth, reduce unemployment, and generate tax revenues far in excess of its costs, thus improving the country’s fiscal position. They might also hope for a housing program that finally addresses the foreclosure crisis occurring in the US.
A comprehensive program to increase economic opportunity and reduce inequality is also needed — its goal being to remove, within the next decade, US distinction as the advanced country with the highest inequality and the least social mobility. This implies, among other things, a fair tax system that is more progressive and eliminates the distortions and loopholes that allow speculators to pay taxes at a lower effective rate than those who work for a living, and that enable the rich to use the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share.
The US, and the world, would also benefit from a US energy policy that reduces reliance on imports by increasing domestic production, while also cutting consumption, and recognizes the risks posed by global warming. Moreover, US science and technology policy must reflect an understanding that long-term increases in living standards depend upon productivity growth, which reflects technological progress that assumes a solid foundation of basic research.
Finally, the US needs a financial system that serves all of society, rather than operating as if it were an end in itself. That means that the system’s focus must shift from speculative and proprietary trading to lending and job creation, which implies reforms of financial-sector regulation, and of anti-trust and corporate-governance laws, together with adequate enforcement to ensure that markets do not become rigged casinos.
Globalization has made all countries more interdependent, in turn requiring greater global cooperation. We might hope that the US will show more leadership in reforming the global financial system by advocating for stronger international regulation, a global reserve system, and better ways to restructure sovereign debt: in addressing global warming, in democratizing the international economic institutions, and in providing assistance to poorer countries.
Americans should hope for all of this, though I am not sanguine that they will get much of it. More likely, the US will muddle through: here another little program for struggling students and homeowners, there the end of former US president George W. Bush’s tax cuts for millionaires, yet with no wholesale tax reform, serious cutbacks in defense spending, or significant progress on global warming.
With the euro crisis likely to continue unabated, the continuing malaise of the US does not bode well for global growth. Even worse, in the absence of strong US leadership, longstanding global problems, from climate change to urgently needed reforms of the international monetary system, will continue to fester. Nonetheless, we should be grateful: It is better to be standing still than it is to be heading in the wrong direction.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his