It is almost impossible to assess the progress of the US economy over the past four decades without feeling disappointed. From the perspective of the typical American, nearly a third of the nation’s productive potential has been thrown away on spending that adds nothing to real wealth or was destroyed by the 2008 financial crisis.
Since the mid-1970s, the US has ramped up spending on healthcare administration by about 4 percent of GDP and increased expenditure on overtreatment by about 2 percent of GDP. Nations such as Canada, the UK and France have not followed suit and yet they do just as well — if not better — at ensuring that their citizens stay healthy.
Meanwhile, over the same period, the US has redirected spending away from education, public infrastructure and manufacturing toward providing incentives for the rich — mostly in the form of tax cuts. The US spends 10 percent more than it used to on making it easier for the rich to accumulate wealth, but it has cut public investment in physical and human capital by roughly 4 percent of GDP, compared with what would have been expected if spending patterns had followed historic trends.
Forty years ago, for example, the US spent roughly 4 percent of its GDP on finance. Today, it spends twice that and the results have been catastrophic.
Despite the plutocracy’s claims that the heads of financial companies and other chief executives deserve their increasingly outsized compensation packages, there is no evidence that they are doing a better job than they used to at running their companies or allocating capital more efficiently.
On the contrary, the lion’s share of the responsibility for the economy’s continuing struggles can be comfortably laid at the feet of the US’ hypertrophied, dysfunctional financial sector.
This reallocation of investment is usually attributed to efforts to boost growth and yet, regardless of how much one tortures the baselines or massages the benchmarks, it is clear that it has failed.
Indeed, it is difficult to see the decisions of the past 40 years as anything other than a profound failure on the part of the public institutions responsible for shaping the nation’s economic progress.
This is a surprising development. Until about 1980, these institutions were clearly world class.
For more than 200 years, the US government was highly successful at expanding opportunity and nurturing economic growth. From Alexander Hamilton’s insistence on promoting industry and finance, to the construction of continent-spanning infrastructure and the introduction of public education, the government’s investments paid off handsomely. Indeed, the government repeatedly pushed the economy into what were thought to be the industries of the future, resulting in economic expansion and a larger, wealthier middle class.
It is only relatively recently that the bets have started being misplaced. The past 40 years of policies have failed to produce a richer society; they have produced only a richer elite.
Not surprisingly, ideologues of the left and the right disagree over what went wrong. The left, quite credibly, blames the idea that the free market is always right and needs to be unchained, and that those it rewards are always deserving. Those on the right, less credibly, attribute the decline to the survival and expansion of the US’ (comparatively meager) social-welfare system.
Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Earned Income Tax Credit, unemployment insurance and disability insurance, they argue, have turned the US into a nation of takers, not makers.
In a new book, Concrete Economics: The Hamilton Approach to Economic Growth and Policy, my coauthor Steve Cohen and I show that the problem is even more fundamental. Poor US economic performance is not the result of any particular ideology, but of allowing ideologues to guide public policy.
The real-world purpose of an ideology is not to provide understanding, but to offer its adherents a sense of certainty as they navigate a complex world. An ideology becomes successful not by suggesting policies that work, but by helping people feel comfortable, happy and sure of what they are doing.
Cohen and I argue that there is a better alternative to the ideological approach: pragmatism. Rather than searching for overarching rules or a grand theory, look instead for what is likely to work — and make policy accordingly.
We have named this approach after the US founder who was most adept at adjusting his policy prescriptions to reality, but it is a method of decisionmaking that has had numerous champions throughout the nation’s history — former US presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln all placed pragmatism ahead of ideology.
As a contribution to popular culture, Concrete Economics is sure to prove less popular than the hip-hop musical Hamilton, but for policymakers seeking to turn around the economy we hope it can offer some much-needed guidance when approaching the challenges facing the US.
J. Bradford DeLong is a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Massachusetts.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday announced that she would dissolve parliament on Friday. Although the snap election on Feb. 8 might appear to be a domestic affair, it would have real implications for Taiwan and regional security. Whether the Takaichi-led coalition can advance a stronger security policy lies in not just gaining enough seats in parliament to pass legislation, but also in a public mandate to push forward reforms to upgrade the Japanese military. As one of Taiwan’s closest neighbors, a boost in Japan’s defense capabilities would serve as a strong deterrent to China in acting unilaterally in the
Taiwan last week finally reached a trade agreement with the US, reducing tariffs on Taiwanese goods to 15 percent, without stacking them on existing levies, from the 20 percent rate announced by US President Donald Trump’s administration in August last year. Taiwan also became the first country to secure most-favored-nation treatment for semiconductor and related suppliers under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act. In return, Taiwanese chipmakers, electronics manufacturing service providers and other technology companies would invest US$250 billion in the US, while the government would provide credit guarantees of up to US$250 billion to support Taiwanese firms
RSS