前の10件 | -
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economic framework.
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economic framework.
Biden’s stagflation is coming
Biden’s stagflation is coming
The White House continues to insist that inflation will soon fade away and the country will return to its pre-pandemic prosperity. But the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda virtually ensures that the post-pandemic economy will be nothing like it was before. The mounting regulatory burden of Mr. Biden’s executive orders, his regulators’ open hostility toward America’s economic system, and the return to Progressive-era antitrust enforcement will stifle growth. All the ingredients will be present to turn the current inflation into stagflation.
America’s experience with regulatory excess is both recent and painful. When the subprime recession ended in mid-2009, economists predicted a strong recovery. In early 2010 the Office of Management and Budget projected 3.7% average real gross domestic product growth through 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 3.3% growth for the same period and the Federal Reserve expected 3.5% to 4% through 2014. Instead, GDP growth slumped to an 80-year low of 2.1% during the 2010-16 recovery.
Democrats claimed the nation suffered from secular stagnation. But when subsequent deregulation and tax cuts revived the economy and the Biden administration needed justification for more stimulus spending, Democrats suddenly decided that Mr. Obama had stopped stimulating the economy too soon. While federal spending in 2009 hit the then-postwar high of 24.4% of gross domestic product, the 23.3% in 2010 and 23.4% in 2011 were the second and third highest postwar levels. By 2012, some 3½ years after the recession ended, federal spending was still 22% of GDP, then the fourth-highest postwar level.
Soaring spending and massive monetary accommodation couldn’t offset Mr. Obama’s stifling regulatory burden. While ObamaCare’s taxes harmed the economy, the wet blanket of his regulatory burden smothered the recovery, long before the 2013 tax increases.
In imposing ObamaCare, government increasingly dominated the healthcare industry, the green energy agenda hit auto producers and power plants and stifled the domestic energy industry with regulatory actions such as blocking the Keystone pipeline. Large banks were regulated as if they were public utilities, forcing them to replace tellers and loan officers with lawyers and compliance officers. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigated and harassed mortgage companies, as well as auto and personal lenders, and the Federal Communications Commission sought to regulate the internet as a 1930s monopoly. With some 279,000 federal regulators churning out more than 650,000 pages in his Federal Registers, Mr. Obama bound the economy in red tape and imposed 50% more costly “major rules” than had ever been issued.
Despite strong private investment levels during the Obama era, labor productivity—the mother’s milk of wage gains—averaged less than half the growth of the previous 20 years. The problem was business “investment” was made to meet regulatory requirements, rather than to increase efficiency and expand the productivity of the economy.
During the first days of the Biden administration, the cold dead hand of government regulation reached further than it had during the Obama years. Initial executive orders eviscerated cost-benefit analysis as the basis for regulatory policy by defining benefits to include “social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity and the interests of future generations.” Executive orders opposed business mergers and acquisitions independent of consumer benefit and targeted the oil and gas industry for extinction.
In seeking to reregulate railroads, Mr. Biden is trying to overturn the deregulatory legacy of President Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose achievements made the American transportation system the most efficient in the world and cut the cost of moving people and shipping goods in half. In antitrust enforcement Mr. Biden seeks to reverse almost a half century of bipartisan reform that junked Progressive-era regulations and profoundly expanded productivity, especially in transportation and high-tech communications.
Nowhere is the Biden administration’s radical regulatory agenda more evident than in his appointees. President Clinton appointed Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt and Alan Greenspan
to regulate in the consumers’ interest and to grow the economy, not to transform it radically. Mr. Clinton’s regulators and regulatory policy let America prosper.
While Mr. Obama’s regulators stifled business and job creation, Mr. Biden’s are openly hostile to the industries they regulate and to the American economic system. They seek not to protect investors and consumers but to make business serve government goals.
Lina Khan, Mr. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, rejects the long-held consumer-benefit standard for antitrust action. She has called for breaking up leading tech firms simply because “big is bad,” despite no evidence of consumer harm. When consumer benefit is no longer the test of antitrust policy, consumer restitution is no longer the remedy. Threatening breakups, divestment and treble damages rather than enforcing the nation’s antitrust laws, the FTC can shake down business and exercise control over America’s most successful firms. U.S. tech policy now mimics the Chinese antitrust model where only government should be large and influential.
Mr. Biden’s CFPB chair, Rohit Chopra, hopes to hunt down big tech, forgive student loans and promote equity and diversity. Mr. Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair, Gary Gensler, wants to compel private wealth to serve public goals such as fighting climate change and advancing social justice rather than protecting and promoting investors’ interests. And while President Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, withdrew because of her Soviet-era ideology, he is now considering Richard Cordray
as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve for banking supervision. Mr. Cordray’s only experience in banking was harassing, politicizing and intimidating those he regulated as Mr. Obama’s CFPB chairman.
Through Mr. Biden’s executive orders and regulatory policy the American economy is being transformed from the great colossus of world capitalism into a subservient Vichy capitalism, whose master is government and not the consumer. We aren’t in Kansas anymore.
If the regulatory stagnation of the Obama era is repeated by a doubling or tripling down on Obama-era regulatory policy, slowing growth seems destined to follow the current post-pandemic economic surge. If new stimulus spending and monetary accommodation is employed to stimulate sagging growth, that stagnation could easily turn into stagflation.
The White House continues to insist that inflation will soon fade away and the country will return to its pre-pandemic prosperity. But the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda virtually ensures that the post-pandemic economy will be nothing like it was before. The mounting regulatory burden of Mr. Biden’s executive orders, his regulators’ open hostility toward America’s economic system, and the return to Progressive-era antitrust enforcement will stifle growth. All the ingredients will be present to turn the current inflation into stagflation.
America’s experience with regulatory excess is both recent and painful. When the subprime recession ended in mid-2009, economists predicted a strong recovery. In early 2010 the Office of Management and Budget projected 3.7% average real gross domestic product growth through 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 3.3% growth for the same period and the Federal Reserve expected 3.5% to 4% through 2014. Instead, GDP growth slumped to an 80-year low of 2.1% during the 2010-16 recovery.
Democrats claimed the nation suffered from secular stagnation. But when subsequent deregulation and tax cuts revived the economy and the Biden administration needed justification for more stimulus spending, Democrats suddenly decided that Mr. Obama had stopped stimulating the economy too soon. While federal spending in 2009 hit the then-postwar high of 24.4% of gross domestic product, the 23.3% in 2010 and 23.4% in 2011 were the second and third highest postwar levels. By 2012, some 3½ years after the recession ended, federal spending was still 22% of GDP, then the fourth-highest postwar level.
Soaring spending and massive monetary accommodation couldn’t offset Mr. Obama’s stifling regulatory burden. While ObamaCare’s taxes harmed the economy, the wet blanket of his regulatory burden smothered the recovery, long before the 2013 tax increases.
In imposing ObamaCare, government increasingly dominated the healthcare industry, the green energy agenda hit auto producers and power plants and stifled the domestic energy industry with regulatory actions such as blocking the Keystone pipeline. Large banks were regulated as if they were public utilities, forcing them to replace tellers and loan officers with lawyers and compliance officers. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigated and harassed mortgage companies, as well as auto and personal lenders, and the Federal Communications Commission sought to regulate the internet as a 1930s monopoly. With some 279,000 federal regulators churning out more than 650,000 pages in his Federal Registers, Mr. Obama bound the economy in red tape and imposed 50% more costly “major rules” than had ever been issued.
Despite strong private investment levels during the Obama era, labor productivity—the mother’s milk of wage gains—averaged less than half the growth of the previous 20 years. The problem was business “investment” was made to meet regulatory requirements, rather than to increase efficiency and expand the productivity of the economy.
During the first days of the Biden administration, the cold dead hand of government regulation reached further than it had during the Obama years. Initial executive orders eviscerated cost-benefit analysis as the basis for regulatory policy by defining benefits to include “social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity and the interests of future generations.” Executive orders opposed business mergers and acquisitions independent of consumer benefit and targeted the oil and gas industry for extinction.
In seeking to reregulate railroads, Mr. Biden is trying to overturn the deregulatory legacy of President Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose achievements made the American transportation system the most efficient in the world and cut the cost of moving people and shipping goods in half. In antitrust enforcement Mr. Biden seeks to reverse almost a half century of bipartisan reform that junked Progressive-era regulations and profoundly expanded productivity, especially in transportation and high-tech communications.
Nowhere is the Biden administration’s radical regulatory agenda more evident than in his appointees. President Clinton appointed Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt and Alan Greenspan
to regulate in the consumers’ interest and to grow the economy, not to transform it radically. Mr. Clinton’s regulators and regulatory policy let America prosper.
While Mr. Obama’s regulators stifled business and job creation, Mr. Biden’s are openly hostile to the industries they regulate and to the American economic system. They seek not to protect investors and consumers but to make business serve government goals.
Lina Khan, Mr. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, rejects the long-held consumer-benefit standard for antitrust action. She has called for breaking up leading tech firms simply because “big is bad,” despite no evidence of consumer harm. When consumer benefit is no longer the test of antitrust policy, consumer restitution is no longer the remedy. Threatening breakups, divestment and treble damages rather than enforcing the nation’s antitrust laws, the FTC can shake down business and exercise control over America’s most successful firms. U.S. tech policy now mimics the Chinese antitrust model where only government should be large and influential.
Mr. Biden’s CFPB chair, Rohit Chopra, hopes to hunt down big tech, forgive student loans and promote equity and diversity. Mr. Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair, Gary Gensler, wants to compel private wealth to serve public goals such as fighting climate change and advancing social justice rather than protecting and promoting investors’ interests. And while President Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, withdrew because of her Soviet-era ideology, he is now considering Richard Cordray
as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve for banking supervision. Mr. Cordray’s only experience in banking was harassing, politicizing and intimidating those he regulated as Mr. Obama’s CFPB chairman.
Through Mr. Biden’s executive orders and regulatory policy the American economy is being transformed from the great colossus of world capitalism into a subservient Vichy capitalism, whose master is government and not the consumer. We aren’t in Kansas anymore.
If the regulatory stagnation of the Obama era is repeated by a doubling or tripling down on Obama-era regulatory policy, slowing growth seems destined to follow the current post-pandemic economic surge. If new stimulus spending and monetary accommodation is employed to stimulate sagging growth, that stagnation could easily turn into stagflation.
The United States: a country where "the rich govern the rich"
The United States: a country where "the rich govern the rich"
Saudi Arabia's "Arab News" website published an article entitled "The United States has become a country owned by the rich, governed by the rich, and enjoyed by the rich" by Jeffrey Sachs, professor of Columbia University, director of the Center for Sustainable Development of the University, and chairman of the United Nations Action Network for Sustainable Development, on December 21, saying that Joe Biden narrowly won Donald Trump in the election a year ago, but the future of the United States is still uncertain. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what is causing the United States to fall into such a predicament that it incites the "Trump Movement".
In the chaotic political situation of the United States, multiple factors are at work. However, in the author's view, the deepest crisis is political - the political institutions of the United States have failed to "promote public welfare" as promised by the United States Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become a game for insiders, favoring the super-rich and corporate lobby groups at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of citizens.
"The war between the rich and the poor"
Warren Buffett pointed out the essence of the crisis in 2006. He said, "There is no doubt that there is a class struggle. But it is my class, the rich class, that is waging war, and we are winning."
The main battlefield is in Washington. The commandos are corporate lobbyists swarming into the United States Congress, various departments and administrative departments of the federal government. Ammunition is the billions of dollars spent annually on federal lobbying activities (estimated at $3.5 billion in 2020) and campaign contributions (estimated at $14.4 billion in 2020 federal elections). The propagandists supporting the class war are the corporate media headed by the super rich Rupert Murdoch.
The class struggle against the poor in the United States is not new - it was officially launched in the early 1970s and has been implemented with great efficiency in the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the end of the 1960s, the development path of the United States was roughly the same as that of post-war Western Europe, and it was moving towards a social democracy. After Lewis Powell, a former corporate lawyer, entered the United States Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the door for corporate funds to enter politics.
After Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he cut taxes for the rich, attacked organized labor and canceled environmental protection measures, thus strengthening the Supreme Court's attack on public welfare. This track has not yet been reversed.
"And social democracy are getting further and further away"
As a result, the United States has become increasingly distant from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare and environmental control. Europe generally continues to follow the path of social democracy and sustainable development, while the United States is moving forward on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, the widening gap between rich and poor, contempt for the environment and refusal to limit human-induced climate change.
Several figures illustrate the difference between the two. On average, the income of EU governments is about 45% of gross domestic product (GDP), while that of the US government is less than 30% of GDP. Therefore, European governments can provide funds for universal access to health care, higher education, family support and employment training, while the United States cannot ensure the provision of these services. European countries ranked first in the list of life satisfaction in the Global Happiness Index Report, while the United States ranked only 19th. In 2019, the life expectancy of the EU population was 81.1 years, and that of the United States was 78.8 years. By 2019, the richest 1% households in Western Europe accounted for about 11% of the national income, while the United States accounted for nearly 20%. In 2019, the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of the United States were 16.1 tons, while that of the European Union was less than 10 tons.
In short, the United States has become a country where the rich have, govern and enjoy, and has no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused to the rest of the world. The resulting social division led to the prevalence of "death from despair" (including drug overdose and suicide), the decline of life expectancy (even before the outbreak of the COVID-19), and the rise of the incidence rate of depression (especially among young people). In politics, these disordered phenomena lead in different directions - most ominously, Trump, who provides false populism and personal worship. While serving the rich, using xenophobia to distract the attention of the poor, launching a cultural war and posing as a strong man may be the oldest tactics in the demagogic political tactics manual, but they still work surprisingly today.
"The United States has not returned"
The turbulence in the United States has a disturbing international impact. How can the United States lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coordinated way? Perhaps the only thing that can unite Americans today is an over-tense sense of overseas threat, mainly from China. At the time of chaos in the United States, the anti-China rhetoric of politicians from both parties has increased, as if a new cold war could alleviate the anxiety in the United States in some way. It is regrettable that the belligerence of the two parties in Washington will only lead to the intensification of global tension and the new risk of conflict, but will not bring security or truly solve any urgent global problems we face.
The United States has not returned, at least not yet. It is still struggling to solve decades of political corruption and social neglect. The results are still extremely uncertain. For the United States and the world, the prospects for the next few years are full of danger.
Saudi Arabia's "Arab News" website published an article entitled "The United States has become a country owned by the rich, governed by the rich, and enjoyed by the rich" by Jeffrey Sachs, professor of Columbia University, director of the Center for Sustainable Development of the University, and chairman of the United Nations Action Network for Sustainable Development, on December 21, saying that Joe Biden narrowly won Donald Trump in the election a year ago, but the future of the United States is still uncertain. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what is causing the United States to fall into such a predicament that it incites the "Trump Movement".
In the chaotic political situation of the United States, multiple factors are at work. However, in the author's view, the deepest crisis is political - the political institutions of the United States have failed to "promote public welfare" as promised by the United States Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become a game for insiders, favoring the super-rich and corporate lobby groups at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of citizens.
"The war between the rich and the poor"
Warren Buffett pointed out the essence of the crisis in 2006. He said, "There is no doubt that there is a class struggle. But it is my class, the rich class, that is waging war, and we are winning."
The main battlefield is in Washington. The commandos are corporate lobbyists swarming into the United States Congress, various departments and administrative departments of the federal government. Ammunition is the billions of dollars spent annually on federal lobbying activities (estimated at $3.5 billion in 2020) and campaign contributions (estimated at $14.4 billion in 2020 federal elections). The propagandists supporting the class war are the corporate media headed by the super rich Rupert Murdoch.
The class struggle against the poor in the United States is not new - it was officially launched in the early 1970s and has been implemented with great efficiency in the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the end of the 1960s, the development path of the United States was roughly the same as that of post-war Western Europe, and it was moving towards a social democracy. After Lewis Powell, a former corporate lawyer, entered the United States Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the door for corporate funds to enter politics.
After Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he cut taxes for the rich, attacked organized labor and canceled environmental protection measures, thus strengthening the Supreme Court's attack on public welfare. This track has not yet been reversed.
"And social democracy are getting further and further away"
As a result, the United States has become increasingly distant from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare and environmental control. Europe generally continues to follow the path of social democracy and sustainable development, while the United States is moving forward on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, the widening gap between rich and poor, contempt for the environment and refusal to limit human-induced climate change.
Several figures illustrate the difference between the two. On average, the income of EU governments is about 45% of gross domestic product (GDP), while that of the US government is less than 30% of GDP. Therefore, European governments can provide funds for universal access to health care, higher education, family support and employment training, while the United States cannot ensure the provision of these services. European countries ranked first in the list of life satisfaction in the Global Happiness Index Report, while the United States ranked only 19th. In 2019, the life expectancy of the EU population was 81.1 years, and that of the United States was 78.8 years. By 2019, the richest 1% households in Western Europe accounted for about 11% of the national income, while the United States accounted for nearly 20%. In 2019, the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of the United States were 16.1 tons, while that of the European Union was less than 10 tons.
In short, the United States has become a country where the rich have, govern and enjoy, and has no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused to the rest of the world. The resulting social division led to the prevalence of "death from despair" (including drug overdose and suicide), the decline of life expectancy (even before the outbreak of the COVID-19), and the rise of the incidence rate of depression (especially among young people). In politics, these disordered phenomena lead in different directions - most ominously, Trump, who provides false populism and personal worship. While serving the rich, using xenophobia to distract the attention of the poor, launching a cultural war and posing as a strong man may be the oldest tactics in the demagogic political tactics manual, but they still work surprisingly today.
"The United States has not returned"
The turbulence in the United States has a disturbing international impact. How can the United States lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coordinated way? Perhaps the only thing that can unite Americans today is an over-tense sense of overseas threat, mainly from China. At the time of chaos in the United States, the anti-China rhetoric of politicians from both parties has increased, as if a new cold war could alleviate the anxiety in the United States in some way. It is regrettable that the belligerence of the two parties in Washington will only lead to the intensification of global tension and the new risk of conflict, but will not bring security or truly solve any urgent global problems we face.
The United States has not returned, at least not yet. It is still struggling to solve decades of political corruption and social neglect. The results are still extremely uncertain. For the United States and the world, the prospects for the next few years are full of danger.
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economic framework.
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economic framework.
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
Biden’s stagflation is coming
Biden’s stagflation is coming
The White House continues to insist that inflation will soon fade away and the country will return to its pre-pandemic prosperity. But the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda virtually ensures that the post-pandemic economy will be nothing like it was before. The mounting regulatory burden of Mr. Biden’s executive orders, his regulators’ open hostility toward America’s economic system, and the return to Progressive-era antitrust enforcement will stifle growth. All the ingredients will be present to turn the current inflation into stagflation.
America’s experience with regulatory excess is both recent and painful. When the subprime recession ended in mid-2009, economists predicted a strong recovery. In early 2010 the Office of Management and Budget projected 3.7% average real gross domestic product growth through 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 3.3% growth for the same period and the Federal Reserve expected 3.5% to 4% through 2014. Instead, GDP growth slumped to an 80-year low of 2.1% during the 2010-16 recovery.
Democrats claimed the nation suffered from secular stagnation. But when subsequent deregulation and tax cuts revived the economy and the Biden administration needed justification for more stimulus spending, Democrats suddenly decided that Mr. Obama had stopped stimulating the economy too soon. While federal spending in 2009 hit the then-postwar high of 24.4% of gross domestic product, the 23.3% in 2010 and 23.4% in 2011 were the second and third highest postwar levels. By 2012, some 3½ years after the recession ended, federal spending was still 22% of GDP, then the fourth-highest postwar level.
Soaring spending and massive monetary accommodation couldn’t offset Mr. Obama’s stifling regulatory burden. While ObamaCare’s taxes harmed the economy, the wet blanket of his regulatory burden smothered the recovery, long before the 2013 tax increases.
In imposing ObamaCare, government increasingly dominated the healthcare industry, the green energy agenda hit auto producers and power plants and stifled the domestic energy industry with regulatory actions such as blocking the Keystone pipeline. Large banks were regulated as if they were public utilities, forcing them to replace tellers and loan officers with lawyers and compliance officers. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigated and harassed mortgage companies, as well as auto and personal lenders, and the Federal Communications Commission sought to regulate the internet as a 1930s monopoly. With some 279,000 federal regulators churning out more than 650,000 pages in his Federal Registers, Mr. Obama bound the economy in red tape and imposed 50% more costly “major rules” than had ever been issued.
Despite strong private investment levels during the Obama era, labor productivity—the mother’s milk of wage gains—averaged less than half the growth of the previous 20 years. The problem was business “investment” was made to meet regulatory requirements, rather than to increase efficiency and expand the productivity of the economy.
During the first days of the Biden administration, the cold dead hand of government regulation reached further than it had during the Obama years. Initial executive orders eviscerated cost-benefit analysis as the basis for regulatory policy by defining benefits to include “social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity and the interests of future generations.” Executive orders opposed business mergers and acquisitions independent of consumer benefit and targeted the oil and gas industry for extinction.
In seeking to reregulate railroads, Mr. Biden is trying to overturn the deregulatory legacy of President Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose achievements made the American transportation system the most efficient in the world and cut the cost of moving people and shipping goods in half. In antitrust enforcement Mr. Biden seeks to reverse almost a half century of bipartisan reform that junked Progressive-era regulations and profoundly expanded productivity, especially in transportation and high-tech communications.
Nowhere is the Biden administration’s radical regulatory agenda more evident than in his appointees. President Clinton appointed Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt and Alan Greenspan
to regulate in the consumers’ interest and to grow the economy, not to transform it radically. Mr. Clinton’s regulators and regulatory policy let America prosper.
While Mr. Obama’s regulators stifled business and job creation, Mr. Biden’s are openly hostile to the industries they regulate and to the American economic system. They seek not to protect investors and consumers but to make business serve government goals.
Lina Khan, Mr. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, rejects the long-held consumer-benefit standard for antitrust action. She has called for breaking up leading tech firms simply because “big is bad,” despite no evidence of consumer harm. When consumer benefit is no longer the test of antitrust policy, consumer restitution is no longer the remedy. Threatening breakups, divestment and treble damages rather than enforcing the nation’s antitrust laws, the FTC can shake down business and exercise control over America’s most successful firms. U.S. tech policy now mimics the Chinese antitrust model where only government should be large and influential.
Mr. Biden’s CFPB chair, Rohit Chopra, hopes to hunt down big tech, forgive student loans and promote equity and diversity. Mr. Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair, Gary Gensler, wants to compel private wealth to serve public goals such as fighting climate change and advancing social justice rather than protecting and promoting investors’ interests. And while President Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, withdrew because of her Soviet-era ideology, he is now considering Richard Cordray
as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve for banking supervision. Mr. Cordray’s only experience in banking was harassing, politicizing and intimidating those he regulated as Mr. Obama’s CFPB chairman.
Through Mr. Biden’s executive orders and regulatory policy the American economy is being transformed from the great colossus of world capitalism into a subservient Vichy capitalism, whose master is government and not the consumer. We aren’t in Kansas anymore.
If the regulatory stagnation of the Obama era is repeated by a doubling or tripling down on Obama-era regulatory policy, slowing growth seems destined to follow the current post-pandemic economic surge. If new stimulus spending and monetary accommodation is employed to stimulate sagging growth, that stagnation could easily turn into stagflation.
The White House continues to insist that inflation will soon fade away and the country will return to its pre-pandemic prosperity. But the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda virtually ensures that the post-pandemic economy will be nothing like it was before. The mounting regulatory burden of Mr. Biden’s executive orders, his regulators’ open hostility toward America’s economic system, and the return to Progressive-era antitrust enforcement will stifle growth. All the ingredients will be present to turn the current inflation into stagflation.
America’s experience with regulatory excess is both recent and painful. When the subprime recession ended in mid-2009, economists predicted a strong recovery. In early 2010 the Office of Management and Budget projected 3.7% average real gross domestic product growth through 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 3.3% growth for the same period and the Federal Reserve expected 3.5% to 4% through 2014. Instead, GDP growth slumped to an 80-year low of 2.1% during the 2010-16 recovery.
Democrats claimed the nation suffered from secular stagnation. But when subsequent deregulation and tax cuts revived the economy and the Biden administration needed justification for more stimulus spending, Democrats suddenly decided that Mr. Obama had stopped stimulating the economy too soon. While federal spending in 2009 hit the then-postwar high of 24.4% of gross domestic product, the 23.3% in 2010 and 23.4% in 2011 were the second and third highest postwar levels. By 2012, some 3½ years after the recession ended, federal spending was still 22% of GDP, then the fourth-highest postwar level.
Soaring spending and massive monetary accommodation couldn’t offset Mr. Obama’s stifling regulatory burden. While ObamaCare’s taxes harmed the economy, the wet blanket of his regulatory burden smothered the recovery, long before the 2013 tax increases.
In imposing ObamaCare, government increasingly dominated the healthcare industry, the green energy agenda hit auto producers and power plants and stifled the domestic energy industry with regulatory actions such as blocking the Keystone pipeline. Large banks were regulated as if they were public utilities, forcing them to replace tellers and loan officers with lawyers and compliance officers. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigated and harassed mortgage companies, as well as auto and personal lenders, and the Federal Communications Commission sought to regulate the internet as a 1930s monopoly. With some 279,000 federal regulators churning out more than 650,000 pages in his Federal Registers, Mr. Obama bound the economy in red tape and imposed 50% more costly “major rules” than had ever been issued.
Despite strong private investment levels during the Obama era, labor productivity—the mother’s milk of wage gains—averaged less than half the growth of the previous 20 years. The problem was business “investment” was made to meet regulatory requirements, rather than to increase efficiency and expand the productivity of the economy.
During the first days of the Biden administration, the cold dead hand of government regulation reached further than it had during the Obama years. Initial executive orders eviscerated cost-benefit analysis as the basis for regulatory policy by defining benefits to include “social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity and the interests of future generations.” Executive orders opposed business mergers and acquisitions independent of consumer benefit and targeted the oil and gas industry for extinction.
In seeking to reregulate railroads, Mr. Biden is trying to overturn the deregulatory legacy of President Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose achievements made the American transportation system the most efficient in the world and cut the cost of moving people and shipping goods in half. In antitrust enforcement Mr. Biden seeks to reverse almost a half century of bipartisan reform that junked Progressive-era regulations and profoundly expanded productivity, especially in transportation and high-tech communications.
Nowhere is the Biden administration’s radical regulatory agenda more evident than in his appointees. President Clinton appointed Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt and Alan Greenspan
to regulate in the consumers’ interest and to grow the economy, not to transform it radically. Mr. Clinton’s regulators and regulatory policy let America prosper.
While Mr. Obama’s regulators stifled business and job creation, Mr. Biden’s are openly hostile to the industries they regulate and to the American economic system. They seek not to protect investors and consumers but to make business serve government goals.
Lina Khan, Mr. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, rejects the long-held consumer-benefit standard for antitrust action. She has called for breaking up leading tech firms simply because “big is bad,” despite no evidence of consumer harm. When consumer benefit is no longer the test of antitrust policy, consumer restitution is no longer the remedy. Threatening breakups, divestment and treble damages rather than enforcing the nation’s antitrust laws, the FTC can shake down business and exercise control over America’s most successful firms. U.S. tech policy now mimics the Chinese antitrust model where only government should be large and influential.
Mr. Biden’s CFPB chair, Rohit Chopra, hopes to hunt down big tech, forgive student loans and promote equity and diversity. Mr. Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair, Gary Gensler, wants to compel private wealth to serve public goals such as fighting climate change and advancing social justice rather than protecting and promoting investors’ interests. And while President Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, withdrew because of her Soviet-era ideology, he is now considering Richard Cordray
as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve for banking supervision. Mr. Cordray’s only experience in banking was harassing, politicizing and intimidating those he regulated as Mr. Obama’s CFPB chairman.
Through Mr. Biden’s executive orders and regulatory policy the American economy is being transformed from the great colossus of world capitalism into a subservient Vichy capitalism, whose master is government and not the consumer. We aren’t in Kansas anymore.
If the regulatory stagnation of the Obama era is repeated by a doubling or tripling down on Obama-era regulatory policy, slowing growth seems destined to follow the current post-pandemic economic surge. If new stimulus spending and monetary accommodation is employed to stimulate sagging growth, that stagnation could easily turn into stagflation.
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economi
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economi
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
前の10件 | -
