It is old news that large segments of society have become deeply unhappy with what they see as “the establishment,” especially the political class. The “yellow vest” protests in France, triggered by French President Emmanuel Macron’s move to hike fuel taxes in the name of combating climate change, are just the latest example of the scale of this alienation.
There are good reasons for today’s disgruntlement: Four decades of promises by political leaders of the center-left and center-right, espousing the neoliberal faith that globalization, financialization, deregulation, privatization and a host of related reforms would bring unprecedented prosperity, have gone unfulfilled.
While a tiny elite seems to have done very well, large swaths of the population have fallen out of the middle class and plunged into a new world of vulnerability and insecurity. Even leaders in countries with low, but increasing inequality have felt their public’s wrath.
Illustration: Mountain People
By the numbers, France looks better than most, but it is perceptions, not numbers, that matter; even in France, which avoided some of the extremism of the era of former US president Ronald Reagan and former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, things are not going well for many.
When taxes on the very wealthy are lowered, but raised for ordinary citizens to meet budgetary demands — whether from far-off Brussels or from well-off financiers — it should come as no surprise that some are angry.
The yellow vests’ refrain speaks to their concerns: “The government talks about the end of the world. We are worried about the end of the month.”
In short, there is a gross mistrust in governments and politicians, which means that asking for sacrifices today in exchange for the promise of a better life tomorrow is unlikely to pass muster. This is especially true of “trickle down” policies: tax cuts for the rich that eventually are supposed to benefit everyone else.
When I was at the World Bank, the first lesson in policy reform was that sequencing and pacing matter. The promise of the Green New Deal that is now being championed by progressives in the US has both of these elements right.
The Green New Deal is premised on three observations.
First, there are unutilized and underutilized resources — especially human talent — that can be used effectively.
Second, if there were more demand for those with low and medium skills, their wages and standards of living would rise.
Third, a good environment is an essential part of human well-being, today and in the future.
If the challenges of climate change are not met today, huge burdens will be imposed on the next generation.
It is just wrong for this generation to pass these costs on to the next. It is better to leave a legacy of financial debts, which future generations can somehow manage, than to hand down a possibly unmanageable environmental disaster.
Almost 90 years ago, then-US president Franklin D. Roosevelt responded to the Great Depression with his New Deal, a bold package of reforms that touched almost every aspect of the US economy.
However, it is more than the symbolism of the New Deal that is being invoked now. It is its animating purpose: putting people back to work, in the way that Roosevelt did for the US, with its crushing unemployment of the time. Back then, that meant investments in rural electrification, roads and dams.
Economists have debated how effective the New Deal was — its spending was probably too low and not sustained enough to generate the kind of recovery the economy needed. Nonetheless, it left a lasting legacy by transforming the country at a crucial time.
So, too, for a Green New Deal: It could provide public transportation, linking people with jobs, and retrofit the economy to meet the challenge of climate change. At the same time, these investments themselves would create jobs.
It has long been recognized that decarbonization, if done correctly, would be a great job creator, as the economy prepares itself for a world with renewable energy.
Of course, some jobs — for example, those of the 53,000 coal miners in the US — would be lost, and programs are needed to retrain such workers for other jobs, but to return to the refrain, sequencing and pacing matter.
It would make more sense to begin with creating new jobs before the old jobs are destroyed, to ensure that the profits of the oil and coal companies are taxed and the hidden subsidies they receive eliminated, before asking those who are barely getting by to pony up more.
The Green New Deal sends a positive message of what government can do, for this generation of citizens and the next.
It could deliver today what those who are suffering today need most — good jobs. It could also deliver the protections from climate change that are needed for the future.
The Green New Deal would have to be broadened, and this is especially true in countries such as the US, where many ordinary citizens lack access to good education, adequate healthcare or decent housing.
The grassroots movement behind the Green New Deal offers a ray of hope to the badly battered establishment: They should embrace it, flesh it out, and make it part of the progressive agenda.
Something positive is needed to save us from the ugly wave of populism, nativism and protofascism that is sweeping the world.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is a professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute. His most recent book is Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in the Era of Trump.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
French firm DCI-DESCO in April won a bid to upgrade Taiwan’s Lafayette frigates, which has strained ties between China and France. In 1991, France sold Taiwan six Lafayette frigates and in 1992 sold it 60 Mirage 2000 fighter jets. To prevent arms sales between the nations, China negotiated an agreement with France and in 1994 in a joint statement, France promised that there would be no future arms sales to Taiwan. From China’s point of view, the DCI-DESCO deal constitutes a breach of the agreement, but the French stance is that it is not selling Taiwan new weapons, but instead providing a
Chung Yuan ChristiaN University is clearly in bed with the People’s Republic of China. This can be the only explanation why the school’s authorities have done their utmost to shield a student, who lodged a complaint against an associate professor, and then used thuggish tactics to compel the teacher to issue two separate apologies to China. The original complaint, filed by an unnamed Chinese student, was for remarks by associate professor Chao Ming-wei (招名威) during a class on the origin of COVID-19. A second complaint was filed by the same student after Chao, during an apology, stated that he was a
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in her inaugural address on May 20 firmly said: “We will not accept the Beijing authorities’ use of ‘one country, two systems’ to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the cross-strait status quo.” The Chinese government was not too happy, and later that day, an opinion piece on the Web site of China’s state broadcaster China Central Television said: “While Tsai’s first inaugural address four years ago was read by Beijing as an ‘unfinished answer sheet,’ the one she presented this time was even more below-par.” Speaking to the China Review News Agency, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies vice president
During my twenty-two years in the US Senate, I became a student of Taiwan and its history. I was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy, and have made at least 25 trips to Taiwan and have been invited as an observer to two of the nation’s presidential elections. Taiwan’s continuous economic miracle has seen the nation transition from a mixed agricultural-industrial society at the end of Japan’s 50 years of jurisdiction to today’s economic powerhouse, unmatched by most nations of the world. Just as outstanding has been Taiwan’s decades of resistance and