Thursday, July 10, 2008

If supply-side economics/market fundamentalism worked, the economic landscape would look quite different than it does now

Jared Bernstein: The Antidote to Our Pessimism: Change - Politics on The Huffington PostPosted July 6, 2008

In decades of tracking such sentiments, I've never seen people so pessimistic about the economy. And remember, we haven't even had a quarter of contracting GDP yet.

Of course, rising gas prices, the deteriorating job market, and paychecks that are barely making it past gas and groceries are the major drivers of these poll results. But they're not the whole story. Well before gas prices spiked, majorities were telling pollsters that something fundamental was wrong in the economy, and that it had to do with the fact that most of the folks who were baking the economic pie were ending up with thinner slices.

These latest economic stressors have simply served to turn this underlying feeling that the game was rigged into a much more urgent sense that something's got to change.
...
First, the structural fissures in the US economy -- the bubble and bust macroeconomy, over-leveraged households consuming beyond their means, inequality levels not seen since the late 1920s -- had to come to light at some point. We're fortunate that they've done so a few months before a general election between the two candidates with starkly different economic visions. More on that in a moment.
...
If supply-side economics/market fundamentalism worked, the economic landscape would look quite different than it does now. The last eight years have served as something quite rare in economics: a natural experiment of the effectiveness of market forces, goosed liberally (wrong word, but you know what I mean) with high-end tax cuts, to address the challenges we face. Health care would be on a sustainable trajectory, energy policy would exist (subsidies to big oil don't count), tax policy would help to offset inequality, not exacerbate it, financial markets would speculate less, price risk more accurately, and be much less bubbly, and the benefits of productivity growth would be more broadly shared with the working men and women responsible for creating them.
...
... McCain can run from Bush, but as long as he doubles down on both Bushonomics and the war, he can't hide. ... His chief economic policy architect is Phil Gramm, that cowboy deregulator who brought us the Enron loophole and sponsored banking legislation that put us solidly on the path to where we are today, bailing out investment banks that failed partly from lack of oversight.

No comments: