The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But then Bush-Cheney came on the scene with tax relief for the wealthy, a lowering of the capital gains/dividend tax to 15%, on the belief that the deficits which it caused, doesn't matter. Wealth and income inequality of course increased even more. In 2000, an NYU study showed that the top 10% of families in the US owned 85% of the stock market and 90% of all business assets. As a right wing pro-wealth free-market Republican, Bush knew what he was doing.
At present most of the money being spent by the US Government is either going to the military or to the financial sectors, both of which are black holes for wealth. Staving off financial collapse via current means only increased wealth disparity. In response to crisis the US is squandering its resources by incurring ever increasing debt for socially harmful purposes. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Clinton was able to bypass this period through reasonable taxes on capital gains/dividends and was able to build a surplus, even though it never began to chip away at the national debt.
The thousand pound gorilla in that room is the current accounts deficit, though. Because it means that the sovereign surplus during the Clinton years was essentially made up of fake money - Clinton restored the sovereign cash flow to surplus, but he did nothing to confront the structural trade deficit, which meant that the sovereign surplus could only continue as long as the private sector ran a net deficit. That is, as long as asset prices increased fast enough to cover the increased borrowing to finance the private sector's deficit spending. Which, translated from econospeak to English, means only as long as the bubble was still inflating.
Now, don't get me wrong - the phony wealth was generated in the private sector, and it was entirely appropriate of Clinton to make sure that as much of that phony wealth as possible went towards reducing the sovereign's obligations to bondholders. But to look only at the Clinton-era sovereign surpluses is to miss the real story of the US economy in the '90s. And on the underlying issue of structural import dependency and de-industrialisation, Clinton barely even slowed the trend.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
by ARGeezer - May 24 4 comments
by DoDo - May 23 43 comments
by DoDo - May 25 1 comment
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 251 comment
by ARGeezer - May 244 comments
by DoDo - May 2343 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 341 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments