America's Future in an Enduring Recession

Aug 9, 2012Herbert J. Gans

Americans have been taught to hope for the best, but to avoid a bleak future, we need to push for policies that support job creation.

Americans have been taught to hope for the best, but to avoid a bleak future, we need to push for policies that support job creation.

America's national optimism is so pervasive that not much public thought has yet been given to the possibility that the Great Recession could endure for many years. Even if GDP, the Dow Jones, and other standard economic indicators suggest that the overall economy is healthy once more, labor markets may not recover. Thus, all employment-related indicators could remain low to the end of the decade and beyond, justifying a guess about the social and political effects of an enduring recession. (Guess must be underlined because many unexpected happenings can always wreck predictions.)

If the country faces a continuing labor market recession, short- and long-term unemployment are likely to rise. So will underemployment, such as involuntary part-time work and shorter work weeks for full-time workers. Discouraged workers will continue to drop out of the labor market, older ones will head for involuntary retirement, and some young people may not obtain a steady job during the entire period. The total number of labor market victims will rise well above the current official estimate of close to 15 percent of the labor force. And this estimate leaves out other victims of the recession -- people brought down by foreclosures, humongous debt, and lost pensions, as well as poor people driven into more severe poverty. 

If the numbers rise sufficiently, the social effects of the enduring recession, which are now still mostly hidden, will become apparent. High levels of depression and other emotional illnesses and related physical ones will multiply, as will family conflict and breakup, interpersonal and criminal violence, and other kinds of self and social destruction. Militant extremists threatening bodily destruction of immigrant and other vulnerable populations may increase in number as well. The medical community and the media are likely to be talking about post-traumatic economic stress disorder. America will be full of very unhappy people.

Of course, November 6, 2012 could bring a Democratic victory of sufficient proportions so that the advocates of serious government action to revive the economy could get their way. If the Democratic majority in the Senate is filibuster-proof and the president is prepared to be transformative, only the conservative House Republicans can effectively sabotage their agenda. If all went well, a new, large, and targeted stimulus, complemented by tax reforms and related policies, would enable the federal government to help create decent jobs and provide sufficient income support for the still-jobless victims of the recession. In the process, consumer demand would be stimulated and the consumer economy would be revived.

But in the event that government continues to be polarized and dysfunctional, politics could worsen economic victimization. In hard economic times, even the economically secure citizens tend to become less generous toward victims, worrying that government funds for the suffering would be taken out of their income and wealth. Some will fear that they will become economic victims too. The greater the shrinkage in public generosity, the greater also the readiness to demonize the economy's victims. The better off and even some not so well off are already describing the needy as moochers or takers and the jobless as too lazy to work. The recession's victims will be described as undeserving of help. Since the better off are more likely to be white and the economic victims disproportionally nonwhite, the latter will probably also experience more intense racial antagonism.

Since many Americans still see no difference between family and governmental budgets, and since recessionary times require familial belt-tightening, many people even outside the GOP base might support additional governmental belt-tightening as well. As a result, elected officials who are required to cut their budgets can further reduce the welfare state and welfare programs without suffering political consequences. And despite what people tell the pollsters about the desirability of higher taxes on the rich, the citizens that matter politically do not seem to contest the GOP argument that the wealthy need further tax reductions so that they can be "job creators."

So far, my long range guessing has emphasized the dark side of the future, but some corrective measures could take place, too. Three such developments seem most likely.

The first is new economic growth. All recessions and depressions, great or small, must end some day, and presumably so will the present one. They could end as a result of the pent up demand that is unfulfilled during deflationary times; for example, as people's necessities wear out and the population increases.

Demand may also return as a result of unpredictable new economic growth resulting from technological and other innovations. New products resulting from cyberspace breakthroughs, including robots as standard equipment at work and at home, are possible examples. So are new industries and businesses to help people survive 105 degree summers.

To be sure, American innovations that can be copied by lower wage economies are eventually copied, and even correlations that once existed between a high GDP and a healthy labor market can no longer be guaranteed. If global competition and an expensive dollar, high U.S. worker productivity, employer reductions in wages and working conditions, and other current impediments to job security and a "middle class" income remain in place, America's standard of living will not return to past levels.

The Great Depression was ended by World War II, which eventually brought about full employment at high wages. Although possible future wars are presumably on the Pentagon's drawing boards, they will not be labor-intensive and can no longer rescue a crippled labor market.

The second possibility is business community protest. Despite the business community's never-ending demand for reductions in taxes and "onerous" regulations, one could imagine that eventually at least the big corporations that earn their profits from consumer demand will begin to hurt. As a result, they might support the public pressure on government to stimulate that demand. They might even do so while continuing to ask for lower taxes and less regulation; giving up such a once profitable ideology will take time. However, some might be ready to trade, supporting stimuli, infrastructure projects, and anything else that provides purchasing power to the people they need to buy their goods and services.

If the business community's economic pain is sufficient, it might support a revival of the moderate Republican wing. Under such conditions, the rest of the party may agree to direct stimulation of the country's purchasing power. Conceivably, such a GOP might even initiate some of the economic policies they have long prevented Democrats from implementing. One must remember that nearly half a century ago, President Nixon was able to persuade his party to let him initiate relations with Communist China.

The third possibility is popular protest. Although the Left has traditionally believed that eventually the general public will demand economic relief, America's voters have only rarely pressed for such change. Right now, they seem to be angered more by social and related issues than economic ones. Or maybe they suspect that demonstrating for economic change is unlikely to be successful.

Moreover, mainstream America has become more diverse, more spread out, and harder to organize than in the past, and the radical unions that mobilized workers during the Great Depression no longer exist. New sociopolitical movements that fit the times are conceivable, but so far only some of the remaining Occupy groups are working toward economic goals, and none yet look as if they could turn into national movements. The victims of the current economy remain politically passive, if only because they must devote themselves to surviving economically and emotionally. In addition, they may feel (rightly) that they have nowhere to turn. Trust in government is at an all-time low, and other political organizations of the needed magnitude do not exist. Liberals and the left stand ready to offer help, but they have not shown that they can transcend the class and ideological differences that separate them from the economy's victims.

Historians still do not agree about the political effects of the popular protests that occurred during the Great Depression. The ghetto uprisings that took place in the 1960s, some simultaneously all across the country, did not produce immediate economic results. Since then, the de facto national incarceration policy has helped to keep the ghettos "quiet," and in recent years, the poor young men not (yet) in jail seem to have more often taken their discontents out on each other.

Perhaps effective political responses to the recession will emerge when more affluent sectors of the population are seriously hurt by the economy, notably the professional and managerial classes that have flourished economically in recent decades. They are politically skillful and know how to make themselves heard. Even Republicans might pick up their ears if the Tea Party and related groups, as well as the evangelicals who have previously concerned themselves only with "social" issues, indicate they now also need economic help. What if they hinted strongly that they will now have to vote their pocket books? Then it is even possible to imagine an election that unites many of the economically victimized and brings them together with liberals and liberally inclined independents, at least temporarily. If they can coalesce with others who stand to gain from a healthier labor market, they might be able to persuade the incumbent president to turn into a contemporary FDR or LBJ.

One would think that if a recessionary or deflationary economy endures, eventually something has to give. Although a dystopian welfare state in which the economy's many victims will live at bare subsistence level is conceivable, perhaps America will instead elect a government devoted above all to saving and creating jobs. However, such ideas are credible only in a country in which ordinary people exercise more political clout than entrepreneurs and speculators.

Herbert J Gans is the Robert S. Lynd Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Columbia University. His most recent book is Imagining America in 2033 (2008).

Share This

What is the Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Really Telling Us?

Aug 8, 2012Mike Konczal

Conservatives have crafted a measurement that uses their own rhetoric as evidence to support their economic talking points.

Do you want to see a magic trick? It doesn't involves cards, fire, or anyone levitating. Instead I'm going to show you a set of Republican talking points magically turn into an economic index -- an index that Republicans then use to argue for their policies.

Mitt Romney's economics team of Hubbard, Mankiw, Taylor, and Hassett have rapidly turned around an economic policy sheet titled "The Romney Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Jobs." Matt Yglesias has a post on the issue of sluggish growth and Dylan Matthews has one on their review of the stimulus literature. Brad DeLong takes the deep dive through the entire piece here.

I'm interested in something I haven't seen people critically discuss enough, and that is the "policy uncertainty index." The Romney plan argues that "uncertainty over policy - particularly over tax and regulatory policy - limited both the recovery and job creation. One recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this uncertainty reduced GDP by 1.4 percent in 2011 alone, and that restoring pre-crisis levels of uncertainty would add 2.3 million jobs in 19 months." This appears to be a new talking point for the candidate's team, as the same language was in a Wall Street Journal editorial by Hubbard over the weekend.

Let's take a critical look at this paper, "Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty," which also has its own website, as it is likely to come up again in the election season. There are two sets of issues, one related to what the index actually shows and another related to the construction of the index itself.

Interpreting the Index

First off, does the paper show what Romney's team claims? Matt O'Brien notes that the big run-up in uncertainty in 2011 is a function of the battle over the debt ceiling. This is very obvious from the graph of their index:

 

 

I personally think we can blame that fiasco on House Republicans. But even if you think the Democrats share some of the blame, it has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank or Obamacare. But Romney's team is using this uncertainty issue to call for repealing both.

That said, the rate is elevated starting around 2009. Why is that? The uncertainty index consists of three parts. The first a news search for articles on policy uncertainty, which we'll return to in a minute. The second part has to do with disagreements among economic forecasters. And the last part is "the number of federal tax code provisions set to expire in future years." Tax code provisions set to expire are weighted by the formula 0.5^((T+1)/12), where T is the number of months until the tax code expires. That means these provisions weigh more in the analysis as they get closer to expiring -- those with more time left have weights approaching 0, and those close to expiration approach 1.

And of course, as the paper notes, "An important recent example involves the Bush-era income tax cuts originally set to expire at the end of 2010." The way the weighting works is that it jumps in the two years before expiration, which means the tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of 2010 really start to matter for the index starting in late 2008, when President Obama is elected.

Watch that again. George W. Bush's economic advisors, like Glenn Hubbard, pass a series of tax cuts in the early 2000s that are set to expire 10 years out. When Obama gets into office the deadline starts to approach, creating "uncertainty" in this index. Then people like Hubbard blame President Obama for all that uncertainty caused by the design of the Bush tax cuts. Brilliant.

A Magic Trick

But now for that magic trick. How do they construct the search of newspaper articles for their index, which generates a lot of the movement?

Their news search index is constructed with four steps. They first isolate their search to a set of articles from 10 major newspapers (USA Today, the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal). They then search articles for the term "uncertainty" or "uncertain." They then filter again for the word "economic" or "economy." With economic uncertainty flagged, they then filter again for one of the following words to identify government policy: "policy," "'tax," "spending," "regulation," "federal reserve," "budget," or "deficit."

See the problem? We don't know what specific stories are in their index; however, we can use their search terms listed above to find which articles would have likely qualified. Let's take a story from their first listed paper, USA Today"Obama taking aim at GOP pledge on campaign trail," from August 28, 2010 (for the rest of this post, I'm going to underline the words in quotes that would trigger inclusion in their policy uncertainty index):

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the House GOP lawmakers who crafted the pledge, said "it's laughable that the president would try to lecture anyone on spending." [....] Buck said the pledge was developed to address voter worries about high unemployment and record levels of government spending and debt.

"While the president has exploded federal spending and ignored Americans who are asking, 'Where are the jobs?', the pledge offers a plan to end the economic uncertainty and create jobs, as well as a concrete plan to rein in Washington's runaway spending spree," Buck said.
Spokespeople for the conservative movement tell reporters that President Obama's policies are causing economic uncertainty. Reporters write it down and publish it. Economic researchers search newspapers for stories about economic uncertainty and policy, and create a policy uncertainty index out of those talking points. The conservative movement then turns around and points to the policy uncertainty index as scientifically justifying their initial talking points about Obama and uncertainty as well as the need to implement their policies. Taa-daa! Magic.
 
Two Other Issues
 

It's amazing how much of the GOP rhetoric you find when trying to replicate this index. With that in mind, there are two additional issues with the index, one empirical and the other theoretical. Let's start with this story, likely caught in their index, USA Today's "Minority leader accuses Obama, aides of 'job-killing,'" from August 28, 2010: "House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio used a speech in Cleveland to blame Obama's spendingtax and regulatory policies for creating uncertainty and stalling economic growth."

Let's pretend, after this story came out, that reporters follow up by asking a lot of experts what they think, and those experts say "There's little evidence to support Boehner's idea that uncertainty over regulation and policy are contributing to economic weakness." What happens? Do they cancel? No, the uncertainty index flags it as more economic uncertainty.

If Boehner, upon reading that story, went out the next day and gave a quote to a reporter that said "I no longer think that uncertainty caused by regulation is contributing to our economic problems," that would be flagged as more uncertainty!

Which is to say that the empirical problems with this measure of policy uncertainty always bias the results upward. Data is never perfect, so it is important to understand which way it is likely to bias. The noise machine of talking points biases this index upwards, but any stories pushing back against this uncertainty meme would also push the index upwards.

There's also the theoretical issue. Their story is one of a weak economy created by government policy uncertainty, of "taxes, government spending and other policy matters." Last fall, the authors wrote an editorial for Bloomberg arguing that their model showed that "harmful rhetorical attacks on business and millionaires," the NLRB's actions against Boeing, and Obamacare were all major factors in the weak recovery. These all point to the supply side of the economy.

But what about uncertainty from lack of demand? Consider a story that begins with "Keynesian economists argue that the economy today is weak because businesses are uncertain about future customers and workers are uncertain about their future jobs, and the textbook response to this situation is expansionary monetary and fiscal policy." This would be flagged in their index as a problem of government policy, though it is a story of weak aggregate demand.

This isn't a hypothetical. Let's look at another story likely captured by their index, USA Today, "Retail sales drop for first time in 5 months," August 13, 2008:

Retail sales fell in July, the weakest performance in five months, as shoppers shunned autos and other big ticket items. [....] Analysts said the poor showing in July, the last month for bulk mailings of stimulus checks, raised concerns about consumer spending going forward.

"Cautious and uncertain consumers are watching their wallets and with the back-to-school shopping season under way, that does not bode well for retailers," said Joel Naroff, chief economist for Naroff Economic Advisors. [....] The disappointing performance of retail sales meant that the consumer sector, which accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity, got off to a weak start at the beginning of the third quarter.

As the economy is going into freefall, as the worst recession since the Great Depression is starting, as the Great Moderation is coming to an end and the violence of the business cycle and a prolonged downturn shows its ugly head again, consumers are reducing consumption because of economic uncertainty. Yet this index reads this as just another example of out-of-control government policy and records it as such. The index will see stories about demand uncertainty as stories about supply, which means it will have trouble telling any accurate story about the Great Recession and our current troubles.

(I have a follow up post, taking apart the rest of the index, here.)

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Conservatives have crafted a measurement that uses their own rhetoric as evidence to support their economic talking points.

Do you want to see a magic trick? It doesn't involves cards, fire, or anyone levitating. Instead I'm going to show you a set of Republican talking points magically turn into an economic index -- an index that Republicans then use to argue for their policies.

Mitt Romney's economics team of Hubbard, Mankiw, Taylor, and Hassett have rapidly turned around an economic policy sheet titled "The Romney Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Jobs." Matt Yglesias has a post on the issue of sluggish growth and Dylan Matthews has one on their review of the stimulus literature. Brad DeLong takes the deep dive through the entire piece here.

I'm interested in something I haven't seen people critically discuss enough, and that is the "policy uncertainty index." The Romney plan argues that "uncertainty over policy - particularly over tax and regulatory policy - limited both the recovery and job creation. One recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this uncertainty reduced GDP by 1.4 percent in 2011 alone, and that restoring pre-crisis levels of uncertainty would add 2.3 million jobs in 19 months." This appears to be a new talking point for the candidate's team, as the same language was in a Wall Street Journal editorial by Hubbard over the weekend.

Let's take a critical look at this paper, "Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty," which also has its own website, as it is likely to come up again in the election season. There are two sets of issues, one related to what the index actually shows and another related to the construction of the index itself.

Interpreting the Index

First off, does the paper show what Romney's team claims? Matt O'Brien notes that the big run-up in uncertainty in 2011 is a function of the battle over the debt ceiling. This is very obvious from the graph of their index:

 

 

I personally think we can blame that fiasco on House Republicans. But even if you think the Democrats share some of the blame, it has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank or Obamacare. But Romney's team is using this uncertainty issue to call for repealing both.

That said, the rate is elevated starting around 2009. Why is that? The uncertainty index consists of three parts. The first a news search for articles on policy uncertainty, which we'll return to in a minute. The second part has to do with disagreements among economic forecasters. And the last part is "the number of federal tax code provisions set to expire in future years." Tax code provisions set to expire are weighted by the formula 0.5^((T+1)/12), where T is the number of months until the tax code expires. That means these provisions weigh more in the analysis as they get closer to expiring -- those with more time left have weights approaching 0, and those close to expiration approach 1.

And of course, as the paper notes, "An important recent example involves the Bush-era income tax cuts originally set to expire at the end of 2010." The way the weighting works is that it jumps in the two years before expiration, which means the tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of 2010 really start to matter for the index starting in late 2008, when President Obama is elected.

Watch that again. George W. Bush's economic advisors, like Glenn Hubbard, pass a series of tax cuts in the early 2000s that are set to expire 10 years out. When Obama gets into office the deadline starts to approach, creating "uncertainty" in this index. Then people like Hubbard blame President Obama for all that uncertainty caused by the design of the Bush tax cuts. Brilliant.

A Magic Trick

But now for that magic trick. How do they construct the search of newspaper articles for their index, which generates a lot of the movement?

Their news search index is constructed with four steps. They first isolate their search to a set of articles from 10 major newspapers (USA Today, the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal). They then search articles for the term "uncertainty" or "uncertain." They then filter again for the word "economic" or "economy." With economic uncertainty flagged, they then filter again for one of the following words to identify government policy: "policy," "'tax," "spending," "regulation," "federal reserve," "budget," or "deficit."

See the problem? We don't know what specific stories are in their index; however, we can use their search terms listed above to find which articles would have likely qualified. Let's take a story from their first listed paper, USA Today"Obama taking aim at GOP pledge on campaign trail," from August 28, 2010 (for the rest of this post, I'm going to underline the words in quotes that would trigger inclusion in their policy uncertainty index):

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the House GOP lawmakers who crafted the pledge, said "it's laughable that the president would try to lecture anyone on spending." [....] Buck said the pledge was developed to address voter worries about high unemployment and record levels of government spending and debt.

"While the president has exploded federal spending and ignored Americans who are asking, 'Where are the jobs?', the pledge offers a plan to end the economic uncertainty and create jobs, as well as a concrete plan to rein in Washington's runaway spending spree," Buck said.
Spokespeople for the conservative movement tell reporters that President Obama's policies are causing economic uncertainty. Reporters write it down and publish it. Economic researchers search newspapers for stories about economic uncertainty and policy, and create a policy uncertainty index out of those talking points. The conservative movement then turns around and points to the policy uncertainty index as scientifically justifying their initial talking points about Obama and uncertainty as well as the need to implement their policies. Taa-daa! Magic.
 
Two Other Issues
 

It's amazing how much of the GOP rhetoric you find when trying to replicate this index. With that in mind, there are two additional issues with the index, one empirical and the other theoretical. Let's start with this story, likely caught in their index, USA Today's "Minority leader accuses Obama, aides of 'job-killing,'" from August 28, 2010: "House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio used a speech in Cleveland to blame Obama's spendingtax and regulatory policies for creating uncertainty and stalling economic growth."

Let's pretend, after this story came out, that reporters follow up by asking a lot of experts what they think, and those experts say "There's little evidence to support Boehner's idea that uncertainty over regulation and policy are contributing to economic weakness." What happens? Do they cancel? No, the uncertainty index flags it as more economic uncertainty.

If Boehner, upon reading that story, went out the next day and gave a quote to a reporter that said "I no longer think that uncertainty caused by regulation is contributing to our economic problems," that would be flagged as more uncertainty!

Which is to say that the empirical problems with this measure of policy uncertainty always bias the results upward. Data is never perfect, so it is important to understand which way it is likely to bias. The noise machine of talking points biases this index upwards, but any stories pushing back against this uncertainty meme would also push the index upwards.

There's also the theoretical issue. Their story is one of a weak economy created by government policy uncertainty, of "taxes, government spending and other policy matters." Last fall, the authors wrote an editorial for Bloomberg arguing that their model showed that "harmful rhetorical attacks on business and millionaires," the NLRB's actions against Boeing, and Obamacare were all major factors in the weak recovery. These all point to the supply side of the economy.

But what about uncertainty from lack of demand? Consider a story that begins with "Keynesian economists argue that the economy today is weak because businesses are uncertain about future customers and workers are uncertain about their future jobs, and the textbook response to this situation is expansionary monetary and fiscal policy." This would be flagged in their index as a problem of government policy, though it is a story of weak aggregate demand.

This isn't a hypothetical. Let's look at another story likely captured by their index, USA Today, "Retail sales drop for first time in 5 months," August 13, 2008:

Retail sales fell in July, the weakest performance in five months, as shoppers shunned autos and other big ticket items. [....] Analysts said the poor showing in July, the last month for bulk mailings of stimulus checks, raised concerns about consumer spending going forward.

"Cautious and uncertain consumers are watching their wallets and with the back-to-school shopping season under way, that does not bode well for retailers," said Joel Naroff, chief economist for Naroff Economic Advisors. [....] The disappointing performance of retail sales meant that the consumer sector, which accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity, got off to a weak start at the beginning of the third quarter.

As the economy is going into freefall, as the worst recession since the Great Depression is starting, as the Great Moderation is coming to an end and the violence of the business cycle and a prolonged downturn shows its ugly head again, consumers are reducing consumption because of economic uncertainty. Yet this index reads this as just another example of out-of-control government policy and records it as such. The index will see stories about demand uncertainty as stories about supply, which means it will have trouble telling any accurate story about the Great Recession and our current troubles.

(I have a follow up post, taking apart the rest of the index, here.)

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

Who's Going to Build the Next American Economy?

Aug 6, 2012Bo Cutter

President Obama's "you didn't build that" comment highlighted the importance of public investment, but we're not doing anything to make it happen.

President Obama's "you didn't build that" comment highlighted the importance of public investment, but we're not doing anything to make it happen.

I'd like to restart "The Cutter Report" with a commentary about President Obama's remark that "you didn't build that." Relax; I'm not going to pile on the endless series of brainless remarks about how the president hates the private sector. For the record, I don't think he does. I think the endless spinning of the president's remarks by Governor Romney, a whole slew of Republican political "experts" (how do you get to be one of those?), and every half hour of Fox News is only another sign of the apocalypse and nothing to be taken as actual real thought about anything that matters.

Rather, I'd like to take his comments seriously, as I think he intended. So let's start with the fact that President Obama is simply correct. It's no more complicated than that.  I've spent two-thirds of my career in business and I think he's right, and so would every businessperson I know outside of the brainless debates of this presidential campaign. We are all damn lucky to have started, run, and been in businesses in America. Not one of us could have done any of this if we were trying to do it in the Eastern Congo. We have a Constitution, a sense of private property, laws, honest courts, decent infrastructure, great R&D, and on and on.  

But right now, we risk losing some or many of these advantages. As I detailed last year, and as Third Way, a centrist think tank, spells out in its new paper, "Collision Course: Why Democrats Must Back Entitlement Reform," we have entered an era when as a nation we have decided not to invest in either hard or soft public infrastructure any longer. I estimated then that our total domestic public sector investment is about 5 percent of GDP and I calculated that this will fall to around 2 percent of GDP over the next 10 years (I used OMB numbers, but the projections are my interpretation). Third Way's numbers show similar trends. Federal investment spending will drop from 6 percent of GDP in 1962 to a projected 2 percent in 2018, or from 3 percent of the federal budget to 10 percent. As I've said before, I think this is a disaster. Why?

First, I completely agree with the central implication of Ben Friedman's classic book, The Moral Consequences of Economic GrowthThere may be problems that come along with economic growth, but they are nothing compared to the problems of no growth, as we have all seen. And none of the problems progressives care about can be solved in the absence of growth.

Second, as a general proposition, growth is not possible in the middle or long term without investment, and I mean both public and private investment. 

But third, investment is even more important to us today, right now. The core truth is that if we are to grow as rapidly over the next 20 years as we did in the last 20, we have to have a productivity revolution. More of our growth will have to come from productivity -- about 80 percent in the next decade, as opposed to 35 percent to 50 percent in the last three decades. To keep growth constant with the last three decades, labor productivity will have to grow by about one-third. If none of this happens, the generation born during the last decade will experience only about 60 percent of the per capita income growth as did the generation born in the '60s. And creating a productivity revolution is going to require an investment revolution in both the private and the public sectors. 

But we're not going to get investment or a productivity revolution or decent long-term growth. Growth is certainly not at the core of either political campaign now. Public investment is disappearing from the federal budget, and private sector investment is at best mediocre. Neither end of our ideological spectrum cares enough about growth to make it a priority. (As the loading dock foreman said, "Sure my boss cares about quality; he mentions it at least twice a year. But he talks 'shipping boxes' about three times a day.")

So if you take President Obama's comments as true -- as I do -- and you see them as a shorthand view of the combination of elements that actually creates growth, and if you project forward a little bit, then we aren't going to be building much of anything in the future.    

(Note: Many progressives strongly disagree with Third Way's paper. I refer you this post on Bill Keller's New York Times blog, "Boomers and Entitlements: The Next Round," for a debate between James Galbraith of the University of Texas, who also critiqued the paper here at Next New Deal, and Jim Kessler of Third Way. Keller's issue is not my issue in this particular post, but I agree with him, and after reading the Third Way paper and the debate, I mostly agree with the Third Way perspective.)  

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter is formerly a managing partner of Warburg Pincus, a major global private equity firm. Recently, he served as the leader of President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transition team. He has also served in senior roles in the White Houses of two Democratic Presidents.

 

Construction workers image via Shutterstock.com.

Share This

A Big Banker’s Belated Apology

Jul 30, 2012Jeff Madrick

This op-ed originally appeared at NYTimes.com.

This op-ed originally appeared at NYTimes.com.

Last week, in a CNBC interviewSanford I. Weill, the former chairman of Citigroup, said that America should separate investment banking from commercial banking. This separation, of course, was the prime purpose of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a piece of legislation that Mr. Weill and other bankers had successfully watered down, with Alan Greenspan’s support, before Mr. Weill helped engineer its official demise in 1999. Now, Mr. Weill, the creator of what was once the largest financial conglomerate in the world, suggests that Citigroup and others should be broken up. Banks can no longer “be too big to fail,” he told CNBC.

But what was most eye-catching was Mr. Weill’s claim that the conglomerate model “was right for that time.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Weill’s original business concept — the justification of financial conglomeration — was to provide one-stop shopping to any and all customers. This could now include clients for investment banking, stock research, brokerage and insurance. Then, with the 1998 merger of his Travelers Group with Citicorp, it could include savers, business borrowers and credit card users, too. But few, even among his own executives, ever believed the strategy would work.

Rather, conglomeration bred conflicts of interest in Mr. Weill’s firms, and others — the very conflicts that the original Glass-Steagall Act was designed to prevent. This inevitably led to investment in and promotion of risky, poorly run and, in some cases, deceitful companies that brought us the high-technology and telecommunications bubble of the late 1990s.

Indeed, Mr. Weill’s Citigroup was a primary underwriter of and one of the two largest lenders to the oil and futures trading firm Enron, whose accounting charade resulted in what was in 2001 the biggest bankruptcy of its time. Citigroup was a major underwriter for the telecommunications giants Global Crossing and WorldCom, which would later go bankrupt as a result of flagrant accounting deceptions. There were many other, if less visible, debacles.

Read the full article here.

Share This

New Deal Numerology: Makers and Takers

Jul 26, 2012Tim Price

This week's numbers: $1.8 million; $560,000; $1.5 billion; $1.1 billion; $1 billion

$1.8 million... is a self-made number. That’s how much government aid has been given to Gilchrist Metal, a company highlighted in Romney ads as an independent success. The owner says he was just reclaiming his own tax money, which the government must have socked away in a special Gilchrist-only fund.

This week's numbers: $1.8 million; $560,000; $1.5 billion; $1.1 billion; $1 billion

$1.8 million... is a self-made number. That’s how much government aid has been given to Gilchrist Metal, a company highlighted in Romney ads as an independent success. The owner says he was just reclaiming his own tax money, which the government must have socked away in a special Gilchrist-only fund.

$560,000... is a patronized number. That’s how much Brian Maloney, another small business owner who criticized Obama’s comments, received from a federal contract on top of a preferential loan. Nearing retirement, Maloney is also deeply concerned about keeping the government’s hands off his Medicare.

$1.5 billion... is a chilling number. That’s how much taxpayer money went to support the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. If Romney has to distance himself from that like he did with Bain and his governorship, all he'll have left to brag about are his five World’s Greatest Dad mugs.

$1.1 billion... is a devious number. That’s the size of Obama's proposed 2013 budget for the Small Business Administration. This is all part of his secret plan to destroy the private sector by bribing the ownership class to convert to socialism and overthrow itself.

$1 billion... is a capitalizing number. That’s how much additional funding President Obama wants to give Small Business Investment Companies. Next he’ll be handing out free bootstraps instead of letting people pull themselves up by the ones they inherited from their dad, the governor of Michigan.

Tim Price is Deputy Editor of Next New Deal. Follow him on Twitter @txprice.

Share This

Bubble Standards: Why the Poor Are on the Hook for the Housing Crash

Jul 23, 2012Mike Konczal

When it comes to assigning losses from an economic bubble, we apply one set of standards to elite investors and another to struggling homeowners.

When it comes to assigning losses from an economic bubble, we apply one set of standards to elite investors and another to struggling homeowners.

Many are discussing a potential collapse of a housing bubble in Canada and what could be done about it right now. Here are posts on that subject from Matt Yglesias, Dean Baker, and Worthwhile Canadian Initiative. As I read the literature being written on this crisis, the key issue to watch for is whether the rapid growth in housing prices is matched by a similar growth in household mortgage debt. To see why, it might be useful to contrast the aftermath of the United States' housing bubble with the stock market bubble.

The IMF recently studied a series of 25 OECD countries from 1980 to 2011. These countries experienced a total of 99 housing busts ("turning points (peaks) in nominal house prices"). It divided these housing busts into ones with a high run-up in household debt and ones with a low run-up, and found that "housing busts preceded by larger run-ups in household debt tend to be followed by more severe and longer-lasting declines in household consumption...real GDP typically falls more and unemployment rises more for the high-debt busts." This happens with or without a financial crisis occuring at the same time as the housing bust.

Why is this the case? Let's look at the allocation of losses that occur from the collapse of a bubble.

Within a short time after the internet dot-com bubble popped in 2000-2001, people had a sense of the size of the losses and who would take those losses. The equity holders of collapsing dot-com firms, the ones who held companies' stocks, would be wiped out, and the creditors would take huge hits, as there was very little property to be auctioned off or value to be retained. Trying to reorganize and resurrect the dot-com firms under Chapter 11 bankruptcy wouldn't have helped because they were new firms with no real revenues sources, their high-skill employees would flee, and there was little in terms of assets to use as collateral to secure future funding.

Since the firms were mostly webpages and had small-scale intellectual property, they were auctioned off very quickly under Chapter 7 bankruptcy rules. Even telecom firms that went bankrupt but had a large amount of assets and were eventually relaunched took less than two years. Global Crossing, for example, went bankrupt in January 2002 and relaunched in December 2003. These bankruptcies involved heavy losses for creditors. According to bankruptcy expert Edward Altman, "Default recoveries continued at persistently low average levels, weighed down by the enormous supply of new defaults and communication firms’ 16.6% average recovery." (h/t Greg Ip) But within a two-year span, the losses were understood and allocated.

It has been roughly five or six years since the United States' housing bubble popped. Have we finished assigning the losses yet? Robbie Whelan at the Wall Street Journal reports that we have a range of estimates from 23 percent of homes with a mortgage being underwater, owing a total of $715 billion more than their homes are worth (CoreLogic's estimates), to 31 percent of homes with a mortgage being underwater, owing a total of $1.2 trillion more than their homes are worth (Zillow's estimate). The evidence is clear that where households are most underwater on their mortgages, consumption is weakest, job losses are the worst, and income gains are struggling.

Mortgage debtors aren't shareholders, but it is fascinating to contrast their fates. In the dot-com bust, losses were assigned very quickly. In the housing bust, losses stick with the equivalent "equity" holder years and years out (and hang like an albatross around the neck of the economy as a whole). The losses that are allocated come about in large part through painful foreclosures, which create more losses by fire-selling assets into a weak marketplace. This system is designed to destroy all possible value and drag out the procedures in long, painful ways.

Crucially, in the dot-com bust there weren't the same moral and political arguments that we see in the current one. Economists who demand to know why U.S. mortgages don't stay with people who walk away from their homes didn't demand to know why the equity holders of Pets.com didn't have to dip into their personal savings to pay off the losses creditors took. Very Serious People wonder if debtors' prisons are necessary for homeowners who would walk away from a mortgage or view bankruptcy as an exit strategy, yet no Very Serious People called for the mass imprisonment of Webvan or Flooz shareholders after those firms declared bankruptcy as an exit strategy. Nobody argues that the shareholders of the dot-com era received a gigantic government bailout through the law when they were not personally on the hook for sticking creditors with an 83.4 percent average loss. Meanwhile, efforts to allow for a cleaner way of allocating the housing bubble losses, from retaining value of the household through bankruptcy reform to local municipalities taking action through eminent domain, face a minefield of political and financial industry opposition that gives the impression that the banks "own the place."

When it comes to assigning losses among elite financial institutions, like shareholders and creditors, there is a clean system in place to make sure that it runs efficiently without dragging the entire economy to a halt. When it comes to assigning losses between household mortgage debtors and elite financial creditors, we sit in a perpetual quasi-recession six years out. As the antropologist David Graber finds historically, "[d]ebts between the very wealthy or between governments can always be renegotiated and always have been throughout world history. They’re not anything set in stone... It’s, generally speaking, when you have debts owed by the poor to the rich that suddenly debts become a sacred obligation, more important than anything else. The idea of renegotiating them becomes unthinkable." This time isn't different.

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

Searching for an Honest Debate on Economics

Jul 18, 2012Jeff Madrick

Glen Hubbard's column in today's Financial Times detracts from meaningful academic debate by ignoring counter-arguments and citing discredited research (when he cites evidence at all). 

Glen Hubbard's column in today's Financial Times detracts from meaningful academic debate by ignoring counter-arguments and citing discredited research (when he cites evidence at all). 

Glenn Hubbard, an economic adviser to Mitt Romney, and more relevant to this commentary, dean of the Columbia Business School, has published a column in today’s Financial Times so devoid of basic academic credibility that it is fair to call it disingenuous.  Hubbard claims research shows that reducing debt levels will create more rapid growth. Any such research is highly controversial. You wouldn’t know it to read Hubbard.  He does not deal with counter-arguments at all.

He cites Harvard economist Alberto Alesina who claims that the way to get debt-to-GDP ratios down is to reduce social transfer spending.  He does not note how profoundly the Alesina research has been discredited by researchers at the decidedly neo-classical IMF. Austerity has rarely - if ever - worked to generate growth

He cites work by the conservative Hoover Institution that reducing federal spending to GDP to pre-crisis rates would increase GDP.  The crisis was caused by a collapse in tax revenues - not by too much spending. Few would agree that reducing such spending so drastically in the near- or medium-term would generate growth. Again, austerity.  And the economy performed poorly at those debt levels anway, failing to create adequate jobs or raise wages.

He claims that the tax system discourages work. One would have liked more detail here, but he wants reduced marginal tax rates.  The evidence is abundantly clear that there is no serious academic evidence to support his claim.

On our website, you can find work by Peter Lindert and Jon Bakija, which thoroughly refute these claims. But more to the point, Lindert and Bakija, both serious academics, look at the research of others, they just don’t ignore it, as does Hubbard in this FT piece.  They confront it and  show where the research fails. 

Is this the job of academics? Is this what Hubbard teaches his students?  Small-government economists might counter that public economists must be given more leeway.  But in truth, Pauk Krugman, the focus of so much right wing criticism,  usually deals explicitly with counter-arguments in his blog and often in his column; he does not simply does cite evidence to support his case without a broader context.

We intend our web site to offer broad, honest argument, to enrich the public discussion, not to narrow it.

Share This

A Shameful Few Weeks Begs the Question: Where’s Government?

Jul 17, 2012Jeff Madrick

With the recent crises in the financial world, it's clearer than ever that we need government to step up and address our problems.

With the recent crises in the financial world, it's clearer than ever that we need government to step up and address our problems.

There are certain periods in our history during which one can only sit back and wonder what the limits of astonishment really are. A couple of years since Dodd-Frank first passed, we have come through a period of such disrepute for business that one wonders why the working class has not risen as one — except, of course, because it is exhausted with efforts at reform that seem so futile. We have uncovered many disreputable and perhaps fraudulent business activities, but they essentially represent a failure of government. 

Facebook's initial public offering collapsed in price, leaving small investors holding the bag. Brokers took care of their big customers far better than their small ones. Where was the SEC?

New insider trading convictions, most recently of the widely respected Goldman Sachs director Rajan Gupta, show how rampant trading on insider information really is. The $6 billion losses at JPMorgan Chase by a department that was supposed to neutralize risk showed that trading risk is too profitable to be foregone voluntarily.

And now we find out that LIBOR is incontrovertibly rigged. Some may not realize that Barclays, which agreed to pay a $450 million fine, signed a Statement of Facts that admitted its traders rigged this key rate to make profits on positions, and collaborated with bankers/traders at other banks. Now we find out that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, while president of the New York Fed, was worried and even wrote British regulators about this. That’s nice. But why didn't government — and Tim Geithner himself — actually do something about it? Are government regulators that feckless?

Of course, there was a certain political advantage in a LIBOR that could be fudged. LIBOR is the rate at which banks lend to each other. It should be nearly riskless, and is therefore used as such in many transactions. LIBOR was the basis, in fact, for up to 100 percent of subprime mortgages. It is often a key input into complex pricing models for securities like derivatives and collateralized debt obligations.     

It could be that the Bank of England looked the other way when some bankers, including Barclays's, lied and said they were paying a lower interest rate than they were in order to make it seem their credit was good. Especially in the fall of 2008, after Lehman’s collapse, governments wanted to calm the waters. Did the Fed also tolerate fudging the numbers?

Why wouldn’t they? The Treasury puts a better face on matters all the time, as does the White House, no matter who is president. PR is an integral part of government. Has the practice in this age of greed slid off onto regulatory agencies? Surely Ben Bernanke was overly optimistic about controlling any impending subprime wreckage in 2007 because he knew it was better to err on the side of Pollyanish hopes that risk precipitating a crisis. What better way to underplay a crisis than to let the banks do it for you?

But for all these remarkable events — and government failures — most disturbing is the ongoing demands for austerity that even President Obama himself makes. The president wants to extend tax cuts for all except those who make $250,000 or more. But he cannot make the case without saying we have to get our fiscal house in order. The nation is likely to need stimulus. But Obama bought into the budget balancing process so early on by appointing Bowles and Simpson to come up with a solution that there is no effective opposition to impending obtuse budget policies in late 2012 and 2013. The classic case is made by the CEO of Honeywell on the front page of the Financial Times. Seeking to blame Republicans and Democrats alike, the esteemed chairman and member of the Bowles-Simpson Commission claims that business has no confidence until this is resolved.

The truth is more simple. Uncertainly surrounds the possibility that the Republicans will hold up the government again, claiming they demand budget cutting. And Mitt Romney promises to do far more damage. There is no contest between the two, and let’s keep in mind that Obamacare, and even Dodd-Frank, contain very good measures that Romney would try to overturn.  

As we end a bad few weeks and start a period of remedying the damage, let’s keep in mind that America’s fiscal problems in the near run are highly exaggerated. But even down the road, the problem is not what we spend, but the tax cuts we have been giving ourselves for 30 years. I will begin to believe the sincerity of arch deficit hawks when they argue for tax hikes, not only cuts in Medicare and Social Security. And so should the chairman of Honeywell and others of influence like him.

The myths of austerity economics are paralyzing the government and keeping the nation from getting its house in order. How may times can one say it? Not often enough, apparently.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

Share This

What the D.C. Mayor's Scandal Tells Us About Disclosure of Political Spending

Jul 13, 2012Mark Schmitt

Vincent Gray's "shadow campaign" that gave money to both the incumbent and challenger exposes the real reason some fight transparency: the desire to cover up the favors they buy with contributions.

Vincent Gray's "shadow campaign" that gave money to both the incumbent and challenger exposes the real reason some fight transparency: the desire to cover up the favors they buy with contributions.

The Senate finally took up the DISCLOSE Act today, which would respond to the post-Citizens United explosion of large and secret political spending by requiring SuperPACs and political nonprofits to promptly reveal their own political spending and their large donors. While Republicans will block it, as they did in 2010, they have developed a new argument that was unveiled by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on June 15: Disclosure would feed the Obama administration in its efforts to “silence” and intimidate its opponents. This new argument was mostly developed by Brad Smith, Steve Hoersting, and their colleagues at the anti-reform Center for Competitive Politics. I wrote about it before the McConnell speech, noting that the conservative argument in the past was to oppose restrictions on political money in favor of disclosure, but now that disclosure is the only option, they have to find a way to oppose that too.

There is a lot that's silly about the “intimidation” argument, most notably that if it were really true that the Obama administration has “got the IRS, the SEC, and other agencies going after contributors, trying to frighten people and intimidate them out of exercising their rights to participate in the American political discourse,” as McConnell said on Fox News, the appropriate remedy would be impeachment. (One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon in 1974, the one that got broadest bipartisan support, was for just such activities.) Instead, McConnell's remedy for what he claims is a lawless administration is that his party's donors alone should get a special exemption from campaign disclosure laws.

Not only does McConnell have less than zero evidence of actual intimidation, his model of how money works in politics is an imaginary one. Let's look at a case of real corruption here in Washington, D.C. On Tuesday, a fundraiser and friend of Mayor Vincent Gray agreed to plead guilty for her role in a $658,000 "shadow campaign" on behalf of Gray, funded by city contractor Jeffrey Thompson.

According to the Washington Post, the fundraiser, Jeanne Clarke Harris, “said Thompson opted to hide his campaign largesse in large part to avoid angering [incumbent mayor Adrian] Fenty, whose administration his businesses relied on for contracts. The Medicaid deal held by his D.C. Chartered Health Plan is the city’s largest contract: It is worth more than $300 million yearly. 'He did not want the sitting mayor to find out he was supporting his opponent,' Harris said. 'If somehow the sitting mayor won, he would be in some serious contractual problems.'"

On the surface, then, this looks exactly like the kind of situation McConnell and his allies have been warning about. Harris may not be telling the truth or accurately representing Thompson's fears, but let's assume she is. Here we have an example of a businessperson fearing retaliation from government for expressing his political views. But I don't see the campaignfreedom.org blog rallying to the defense of Mr. Thompson.

Perhaps that's because its obvious that Thompson was not expressing political views by secretly supporting Gray. He was covering his bets. Like most large political donors, his main view is his interest in making more money. He expected to have more clout in a Gray administration, especially because that administration will feel more obligated to him, but he did not want to jeopardize his partial success with the Fenty administration. So he made his expenditures secretly, through Harris and other channels.

Nondisclosure allowed Thompson to basically operate without expressing a political choice, by making contributions that he hoped would ensure access and influence no matter which candidate won. That's the more general explanation for corporations and individuals wanting to keep large expenditures undisclosed. "Retaliation," if and when it happens (and I'm not including plainly illegal actions like turning the IRS on an opponent's supporters), is just the inverse of the influence and access that motivates giving. And nondisclosure, of course, doesn't mean that the politicians and elected officials who benefit from the money don't know about it. It should really be called uneven disclosure or asymmetrical disclosure.

Disclosure generally, and the DISCLOSE Act in particular, hardly solve all the problems of political inequality. But at least they allow us to begin to see the patterns of corruption, such as the connections between Thompson's spending and his contracts, and demand better – just as D.C. voters and councilmembers are doing in calling for the mayor's resignation.

Mark Schmitt is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Reagan Redux: The Truth About Romney Economics

Jun 15, 2012Jeff Madrick

The oversimplification of Romney’s economic plan avoids calling it out for what it really is: an extension of failed Republican economic policies.

In the home of Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick this week, The New York Times reported that President Obama described Romney’s campaign attacks, which claim all current problems are “the fault of the guy in the White House,” as “an elegant message. It happens to be wrong.”

The oversimplification of Romney’s economic plan avoids calling it out for what it really is: an extension of failed Republican economic policies.

In the home of Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick this week, The New York Times reported that President Obama described Romney’s campaign attacks, which claim all current problems are “the fault of the guy in the White House,” as “an elegant message. It happens to be wrong.”

This is as clear an example as we have of Obama’s inability to make a powerful message in a few words. Sounding professorial, he uses the word “elegant” as if referring to a mathematical proof. Clean and simple, I suppose. But to many a listener and reader, elegant only has positive connotations. Why this loftiness when plain, honest, focused language will do the job?

The fact is that almost all of our current situation is a result of economic policies that were put into effect before Obama took office. Not only is Romney’s message not elegant, but his economic plan will boldly extend these failed policies. His central message is simplistic, ignorant, and, to use a lofty word, ahistorical. In actuality, the plan has been underway since the 1980s and even before, and look where it’s gotten us. It serves the interests of the wealthy very well, but has it served America at all? It’s not the collapse of the welfare state, but the ravages of a rising oligarchy, that are undoing America.

Which brings me to another New York Times piece, today’s David Brooks column. Brooks’s methodology as a “thinker” is to develop arguments that he knows will sound plausible to his readers and maybe to a significant swatch of centrists. He is good at these over-simplifications. Today’s column is as unaware or deliberately neglectful of history as ever. What Democrats don’t understand is that the system is broken, he says. Republicans understand this and want to return us to some early (if mythological) economic state. The welfare state is on the cusp of failing; he quotes a Weekly Standard piece on this idea that he thinks definitive. This welfare model, he goes on, “favors security over risk, comfort over effort, stability over innovation.”

This is breathtaking nonsense. The so-called welfare state—whose main features are benefits to the elderly, by the way—favors opportunity for those who have no access to it,  substantial government investment in education and research, which are the great sources of innovation, adequate transportation to enable business to operate efficiently, and fewer and more moderate recessions so that the nation does not lose investment, human capital, and many good businesses due to short-term fluctuations.

And, oh, yes, the welfare state does promote some compassion for the less fortunate—those thrown out of work through no fault of their own—and a sense that all of us owe something to each other. And, yes, it does require government.

What’s truly mind-numbing about the Brooks view, which clearly represents a Republican body of what is considered highly sensible thought, is that all the Romney proposals have been on the ascendancy since Ronald Reagan, and some of them before. These include lower progressive tax rates (Reagan and Bush); deregulation and weak regulatory implementation (Reagan, Bush I and II, Carter, and most important for financial regulations, Clinton); reduced social spending on many categories, notably welfare (Reagan and Clinton); few new programs even as social needs change; and inordinately tight monetary policy since Paul Volcker’s chairmanship at the Federal Reserve, to keep inflation and therefore wages in check. And what happened? Stagnating wages, modest capital investment, unequal public education, and collapsing infrastructure. These are the results of Romney economics.       

If there is theory at all in the Brooks view, it is of course the spurious generalization that individualism will win the day. Just make everyone take care of him or herself. Republicans love this notion. The other idea is that if business is just allowed to do its job, free of most regulation and taxes, everyone will do just fine.  The historical evidence clearly points to the opposite. Look at the levels of inequality in the good old regulation-free and low-tax days of post-Civil War America. Do you we need a better example?

Returning to Obama—he better fight this battle head on, not in professorial dignities, but on the sweaty mat where victory is won. He better understand that the Brooks's over-simplifications are appealing because they blame victims and relieve the rest of responsibility. Call these things what they are, Mr. President. Make America the responsible society once again. The Romney policies failed not just since George W. Bush, but since Ronald Reagan and even Jimmy Carter. 

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

Share This

Pages