The world’s advanced economies are suffering from a number of deep-seated problems. In the US, in particular, inequality is at its highest since 1928, and GDP growth remains woefully tepid compared to the decades after World War II.
After promising annual growth of “4, 5 and even 6 percent,” US President Donald Trump and his Republican enablers in the US Congress have delivered only unprecedented deficits.
According to the US Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections, the federal budget deficit will reach US$900 billion this year and surpass the US$1 trillion mark every year after 2021 — and yet the sugar high induced by the latest deficit increase is already fading, with the IMF forecasting US growth of 2.5 percent this year and 1.8 percent next year, down from 2.9 last year.
Many factors are contributing to the US economy’s low-growth-high-inequality problem. Trump and the Republicans’ poorly designed tax “reform” has exacerbated existing deficiencies in the tax code, funneling even more income to the highest earners.
At the same time, globalization continues to be poorly managed, and financial markets continue to be geared toward extracting profits — rent-seeking, in economists’ parlance — rather than providing useful services.
However, an even deeper and more fundamental problem is the growing concentration of market power in the US, which allows dominant firms to exploit their customers and squeeze their employees, whose own bargaining power and legal protections are being weakened. CEOs and senior executives are increasingly extracting higher pay for themselves at the expense of workers and investment.
For example, US corporate executives made sure that the vast majority of the benefits from the tax cut went into dividends and stock buybacks, which exceeded a record-breaking US$1.1 trillion last year.
Buybacks raised share prices and boosted the earnings per share-ratio, on which many executives’ compensation is based. Meanwhile, at 13.7 percent of GDP, annual investment remained weak, while many corporate pensions went underfunded.
Evidence of rising market power can be found almost anywhere. Large markups are contributing to high corporate profits. In sector after sector, from little things like cat food to big things like telecoms, cable providers, airlines and technology platforms, a few firms now dominate 75 to 90 percent of the market, if not more; and the problem is even more pronounced at the level of local markets.
As corporate behemoths’ market power has increased, so, too, has their ability to influence the US’ money-driven politics. And as the system has become more rigged in businesses’ favor, it has become much harder for ordinary citizens to seek redress for mistreatment or abuse.
A perfect example of this is the spread of arbitration clauses in labor contracts and user agreements, which allow corporations to settle disputes with employees and customers through a sympathetic mediator, rather than in court.
Multiple forces are driving the increase in market power. One is the growth of sectors with large network effects, where a single firm — like Google or Facebook — can easily dominate. Another is the prevailing attitude among business leaders, who have come to assume that market power is the only way to ensure durable profits.
As venture capitalist Peter Thiel famously put it: “Competition is for losers.”
Some US business leaders have shown real ingenuity in creating market barriers to prevent any kind of meaningful competition, aided by lax enforcement of existing competition laws and the failure to update those laws for the 21st-century economy. As a result, the share of new firms in the US is declining.
None of this bodes well for the US’ economy. Rising inequality implies falling aggregate demand, because those at the top of the wealth distribution tend to consume a smaller share of their income than those of more modest means.
Moreover, on the supply side, market power weakens incentives to invest and innovate. Firms know that if they produce more, they will have to lower their prices. This is why investment remains weak, despite the corporate US’ record profits and trillions of US dollars of cash reserves.
And besides, why bother producing anything of value when you can use your political power to extract more rents through market exploitation? Political investments in getting lower taxes yield far higher returns than real investments in plant and equipment.
Making matters worse, the US’ low tax-to-GDP ratio — just 27.1 percent even before the Trump tax cut — means a dearth of money for investment in the infrastructure, education, healthcare and basic research needed to ensure future growth. These are the supply-side measures that actually do “trickle down” to everyone.
The policies for combating economically damaging power imbalances are straightforward.
Over the past half-century, Chicago School economists, acting on the assumption that markets are generally competitive, narrowed the focus of competition policy solely to economic efficiency, rather than broader concerns about power and inequality.
The irony is that this assumption became dominant in policymaking circles just when economists were beginning to reveal its flaws.
The development of game theory, and new models of imperfect and asymmetric information, laid bare the profound limitations of the competition model.
The law needs to catch up. Anti-competitive practices should be illegal, period. And beyond that, there are a host of other changes needed to modernize the US’ antitrust legislation. Americans need the same resolve in fighting for competition that their corporations have shown in fighting against it.
The challenge, as always, is political — but with US corporations having amassed so much power, there is reason to doubt that the US political system is up to the task of reform.
Add to that the globalization of corporate power, and the orgy of deregulation and crony capitalism under Trump, and it is clear that Europe will have to take the lead.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath