Display:
I think Jerome is, at least to some extent, right.  But that was also partly my point.  The key difference between the US and the UK is how they're spending the money.  Bush spent it on tax cuts, which led, to no one's surprise, to a temporary increase in the savings rate.  But, as wages have not kept pace with inflation, the savings rate has fallen to roughly zero.

I think Bush and his economic advisors -- N. Gregory Mankiw (excellent), Glenn Hubbard (horrible), and Ben Bernanke (also excellent) -- missed the point, though Mankiw and Bernanke clearly haven't had much influence.  Bush would've move forward on these particular cuts, with or without them.

It's not that increased savings is bad.  Quite the contrary.  Americans need to save more.  But it's the working- and middle-classes that need more opportunity to save, and not through some moronic scheme to privatize Social Security.  That's how we could've pursued a Pareto-improving outcome in the future, by helping people gain access to the tools needed to "create" wealth.  (I wish economists could come up with a different term for this.  "Create" makes it sound like higher standards of living just appear out of nowhere.)

The upper-class in America already saves an enormous chunk of its income -- the kind of rates you typically find in Asian countries.  I suspect it's a similar story in Europe.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 10:35:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pareto-improving? You're so 19th century... Old school. Embrace Kaldor-Hicks! Bush's economic policy has resulted in a Kaldor-Hicks improvement because the wealthy, the corporate welfare queens and Halliburton could in principle make it up to the rest of Americans if they so chose. Aren't economists clever?

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 10:42:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I know.  It's sort of like the Supply-Siders, who failed to "bring back the magic," as Paul Krugman put it, and then claimed that they, in fact, had.  Or, as the Wizard said, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 10:46:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your point that Brown's Keynesian spending could do some good is valid, but it's been awfully timed, coming when spending was already otherwide stimulated by asset appreciation. It would be a lot more effective today, but is now constrained by the unavailability of budgetary room of manoeuver.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 10:53:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series