What ails America – and how to fix it

 America is a country of undoubted vast strengths—technological, economic, and cultural—yet its government is profoundly failing its own citizens and the world. Trump’s victory is very easy to understand. It was a vote against the status quo. Whether Trump will fix—or even attempt to fix—what really ails America remains to be seen.

The rejection of the status quo by the American electorate is overwhelming. According to Gallup in October 2024, 52% of Americans said they and their families were worse off than four years ago, while only 39% said they were better off and 9% said they were about the same. An NBC national news poll in September 2024 found that 65% of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, while only 25% said that it is on the right track. In March 2024, according to Gallup, only 33% of Americans approved of Joe Biden’s handling of foreign affairs.

At the core of the American crisis is a political system that fails to represent the true interests of the average American voter. The political system was hacked by big money decades ago, especially when the U.S. Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign contributions. Since then, American politics has become a plaything of super-rich donors and narrow-interest lobbies, who fund election campaigns in return for policies that favour vested interests rather than the common good.

Two groups own the Congress and White House: super-rich individuals and single-issue lobbies.

The world watched agape as Elon Musk, the world’s richest person (and yes, a brilliant entrepreneur and inventor), played a unique role in backing Trump’s election victory, both through his vast media influence and funding. Countless other billionaires chipped into Trump’s victory.

Many (though not all) of the super-rich donors seeks special favours from the political system for their companies or investments, and most of those desired favours will be duly delivered by the Congress, the White House, and the regulatory agencies staffed by the new administration. Many of these donors also push one overall deliverable: further tax cuts on corporate income and capital gains.

Many business donors, I would quickly add, are forthrightly on the side of peace and cooperation with China, as very sensible for business as well as for humanity. Business leaders generally want peace and incomes, while crazed ideologues want hegemony through war.

There would have been precious little difference in all of this with a Harris victory. The Democrats have their own long list of the super-rich who financed the party’s presidential and Congressional campaigns. Many of those donors too would have demanded and received special favours.

Tax breaks on capital income have been duly delivered by Congress for decades no matter their impact on the ballooning federal deficit, which now stands at nearly 7 percent of GDP, and no matter that the U.S. pre-tax national income in recent decades has shifted powerfully towards capital income and away from labor income. As measured by one basic indicator, the share of labor income in GDP has declined by around 7 percentage points since the end of World War II. As income has shifted from labor to capital, the stock market (and super-wealth) has soared, with the overall stock market valuation rising from 55% of GDP in 1985 to 200% of GDP today!

The second group with its hold on Washingtons is single-issue lobbies. These powerful lobbies include the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, Big Oil, the gun industry, big pharma, big Ag, and the Israel Lobby. American politics is well organised to cater to these special interests. Each lobby buys the support of specific committees in Congress and selected national leaders to win control over public policy.

The economic returns to special-interest lobbying are often huge: a hundred million dollars of campaign funding by a lobby group can win a hundred billion of federal outlays and/or tax breaks. This is the lesson, for example, of the Israel lobby, which spends a few hundred million dollars on campaign contributions, and harvests tens of billions of dollars in military and economic support for Israel.

These special-interest lobbies do not depend on, nor care much about, public opinion. Opinion surveys show regularly that the public wants gun control, lower drug prices, an end of Wall Street bailouts, renewable energy, and peace in Ukraine and the Middle East. Instead, the lobbyists ensure that Congress and the White House deliver continued easy access to handguns and assault weapons, sky-high drug prices, coddling of Wall Street, more oil and gas drilling, weapons for Ukraine, and wars on behalf of Israel.

These powerful lobbies are money-fuelled conspiracies against the common good. Remember Adam Smith’s famous dictum in the Wealth of Nations (1776): “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

The two most dangerous lobbies are the military-industrial complex (as Eisenhower famously warned us in 1961) and the Israel lobby (as detailed in a scintillating new book by historian Ilan Pappé). Their special danger is that they continue to lead us to war and closer to nuclear Armageddon. Biden’s reckless recent decision to allow U.S. missile strikes deep inside Russia, long advocated by the military-industrial complex, is case in point.

The military-industrial complex aims for U.S. “full-spectrum dominance.” It’s purported solutions to world problems are wars and more wars, together with covert regime-change operations, U.S. economic sanctions, U.S. info-wars, colour revolutions (led by the National Endowment for Democracy), and foreign policy bullying. These of course have been no solutions at all. These actions, in flagrant violation of international law, have dramatically increased U.S. insecurity.

The military-industrial complex (MIC) dragged Ukraine into a hopeless war with Russia by promising Ukraine membership in NATO in the face of Russia’s fervent opposition, and by conspiring to overthrow Ukraine’s government in February 2014 because it sought neutrality rather than NATO membership.

The military-industrial complex is currently—unbelievably—promoting a coming war with China. This will of course involve a huge and lucrative arms buildup, the aim of the MIC. Yet it will also threaten World War III or a cataclysmic U.S. defeat in another Asian war.

While the Military-Industrial Complex has stoked NATO enlargement and conflicts with Russia and China, the Israel Lobby has stoked America’s serial wars in the Middle East. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, more than any U.S. president, has been the lead promoter of America’s backing of disastrous wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

Netanyahu’s aim is to keep the land that Israel conquered in the 1967 war, creating what is called Greater Israel, and to prevent a Palestinian State. This expansionist policy, in contravention of international law, has given rise to militant pro-Palestinian groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Netanyahu’s long-standing policy is for the U.S. to topple or help to topple the governments that support these resistance groups.

Incredibly, the Washington neocons and the Israel Lobby actually joined forces to carry out Netanyahu’s disastrous plan for wars across the Middle East. Netanyahu was a lead backer of the War in Iraq. Former Air Force Command Chief Master Sergeant Dennis Fritz has recently described in detail the Israel Lobby’s large role in that war. Ilan Pappé has done the same. In fact, the Israel Lobby has supported U.S.-led or U.S.-backed wars across the Middle East, leaving the targeted countries in ruins and the U.S. budget deep in debt.

In the meantime, the wars and tax cuts for the rich, have offered no solutions for the hardships working-class Americans. As in other high-income countries, employment in U.S. manufacturing fell sharply from the 1980s onward as assembly-line workers were increasingly replaced by robots and “smart systems.” The decline in the labor share of value in the U.S. has been significant, and once again has been a phenomenon shared with other high-countries.

Yet American workers have been hit especially hard. In addition to the underlying global technological trends hitting jobs and wages, American workers have been battered by decades of anti-union policies, soaring tuition and healthcare costs, and other anti-worker measures. In high-income countries of northern Europe, “social consumption” (publicly funded healthcare, tuition, housing, and other publicly provided services) and high levels of unionisation have sustained decent living standards for workers. Not so in the United States.

Yet this was not the end of it. Soaring costs of health care, driven by the private health insurers, and the absence of sufficient public financing for higher education and low-cost online options, created a pincer movement, squeezing the working class between falling or stagnant wages on the one side and rising education and healthcare costs on the other side. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans did much of anything to help the workers.

Trump’s voter base is the working class, but his donor base is the super-rich and the lobbies. So, what will happen next? More of the same—wars and tax cuts—or something new and real for the voters?

Trump’s purported answer is a trade war with China and the deportation of illegal foreign workers, combined with more tax cuts for the rich. In other words, rather than face the structural challenges of ensuring decent living standards for all, and face forthrightly the staggering budget deficit, Trump’s answers on the campaign trail and in his first term were to blame China and migrants for low working-class wages and wasteful spending for the deficits.

This has played well electorally in 2016 and 2024, but will not deliver the promised results for workers in the long run. Manufacturing jobs will not return in large numbers from China since they never went in large numbers to China. Nor will deportations do much to raise living standards of average Americans.

This is not to say that real solutions are lacking. They are hiding in plain view—if Trump chooses to take them, over the special interest groups and class interests of Trump’s backers. If Trump chooses real solutions, he would achieve a strikingly positive political legacy for decades to come.

The first is to face down the military-industrial complex. Trump can end the war in Ukraine by telling President Putin and the world that NATO will never expand to Ukraine. He can end the risk of war with China by making crystal clear that the U.S. abides by the One China Policy, and as such, will not interfere in China’s internal affairs by sending armaments to Taiwan over Beijing’s objections, and would not support any attempt by Taiwan to secede.

The second is to face down the Israel lobby by telling Netanyahu that the U.S. will no longer fight Israel’s wars and that Israel must accept a State of Palestine living in peace next to Israel, as called for by the entire world community. This indeed is the only possible path to peace for Israel and Palestine, and indeed for the Middle East.

The third is to close the budget deficit, partly by cutting wasteful spending—notably on wars, hundreds of useless overseas military bases, and sky-high prices the government pays for drugs and healthcare—and partly by raising government revenues. Simply enforcing taxes on the books by cracking down on illegal tax evasion would have raised $625 billion in 2021, around 2.6% of GDP. More should be raised by taxation of soaring capital incomes.

The fourth is an innovation policy (aka industrial policy) that serves the common good. Elon Musk and his Silicon Valley friends have succeeded in innovation beyond the wildest expectations. All kudos to Silicon Valley for bringing us the digital age. America’s innovation capacity is vast and robust and an envy of the world.

The challenge now is innovation for what? Musk has his eye on Mars and beyond. Captivating, yet there are billions of people on Earth that can and should be helped by the digital revolution in the here and now. A core goal of Trump’s industrial policy should be to ensure that innovation serves the common good, including the poor, the working class, and the natural environment. Our nation’s goals need to go beyond wealth and weapons systems.

As Musk and his colleagues know better than anybody, the new AI and digital technologies can usher in an era of low-cost, zero-carbon energy; low-cost healthcare; low-cost higher education; low-cost electricity-powered mobility; and other AI-enabled efficiencies that can raise real living standards of all workers. In the process, innovation should foster high-quality, unionised jobs—not the gig employment that has sent living standards plummeting and worker insecurity soaring.

Trump and the Republicans have resisted these technologies in the past. In his first term, Trump let China take the lead in these technologies pretty much across the board. Our goal is not to stop China’s innovations, but to spur our own. Indeed, as Silicon Valley understands while Washington does not, China has long been and should remain America’s partner in the innovation ecosystem. China’s highly efficient and low-cost manufacturing facilities, such as Tesla’s Gigafactory in Shanghai, put Silicon Valley’s innovations into worldwide use … when America tries.

All four of these steps are within Trump’s reach, and would justify his electoral triumph and secure his legacy for decades to come. I’m not holding my breath for Washington to adopt these straightforward steps. American politics has been rotten for too long for real optimism in that regard, yet these four steps are all achievable, and would greatly benefit not only the tech and finance leaders who backed Trump’s campaign but the generation of disaffected workers and households whose votes put Trump back into the White House.

Source link

Related posts:

Renovating democracy and the China challenge

To break out of its paralysis, the West needs to take a hard look and address three key challenges

Bretton Woods should heed the cries for fair play or go, how China can help reshape the global financial system

 Is Bretton Woods fit for the 21st century?

America is financed by the rest of the world because of the hegemomic of the US dollar.

The world's largest economy has moved from a giver of global public goods to a taker of global resources.

Probably the best way to increase global funding is to raise the capital of the global multilateral development banks like the World Bank, Asia Development Bank, etc.

In July 1944, delegates from 44 countries gathered in a UN-sponsored conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to decide on a post-World War II monetary and financial order. 

In the closing speech of the gathering, then US Treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau concluded that the conference had succeeded in addressing the twin “economic evils – the competitive currency devaluation and destructive impediments to trade” that led to the war.

To prevent competitive devaluation, the Bretton Woods conference established the fixed but adjustable exchange rate system, which was based on the US dollar linked to gold and capital controls, securing funding from a newly created World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

The global free trade mechanism was negotiated first through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which decades later became the World Trade Organization.

The Bretton Woods negotiations were led by the US chief delegate Harry Dexter White and the eminent British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argued unsuccessfully for the creation of an new international currency called the bancor, whereas the United States preferred to use its own currency.

In 1944, the US had the largest share of world GDP and was a major creditor to economies suffering from the destruction of war. It is no surprise that the Bretton Woods order was largely US-led and designed.

This Bretton Woods structure lasted until 1971, when rising US fiscal and trade deficits led US President Richard Nixon to delink the US dollar from gold at the fixed price of US$35 to one ounce of gold. 

After flexible exchange rates became the global norm, the US continued to be financed by the rest of the world because of the hegemonic position of the US dollar. It was protected by the might of the US military and its status as the strongest economy, including being the consumer of last resort.

Eighty years later, the US share of world GDP has been pared down to 26 per cent by current exchange rates but the US dollar remains as mighty as ever.

People walk past an image of US dollar bills outside a currency exchange bureau in downtown Nairobi, Kenya, on February 16. Photo: Reuters

Unfortunately, having the US dollar act as the global reserve currency is both a blessing and curse. The US is able to fund its fiscal and trade deficits easily because the rest of the world prefers to hold the US dollar.

But running protracted deficits means that the US net liability to the rest of the world is now US$21 trillion, or about 20 per cent of world GDP, with a gross sovereign debt of US$35 trillion, or roughly one third of world GDP. Fiscal debt cost is rising as interest expenses will rise from 3.4 per cent of GDP in financial year 2025 to 4.1 per cent by 2034.

The irony is that the world’s largest debtor absorbs more of the world’s natural and financial capital that encourages global consumption to drive growth. Since increased levels of consumption ultimately generates more carbon emissions, the current model is neither ecologically nor financially sustainable.

To address these global imbalances, the United Nations has suggested that a “just transition” requires US$2.4 trillion annually to fund clean energy and climate resilience. Where is this money going to come from?

What is climate finance, and why is it crucial to the global energy transition?

This is both a flow and a stock problem. The annual shortfall, or flow, can either be funded from an increase in taxation or a cut in spending. The stock issue is whether there is enough wealth to be taxed or used to fund the needed climate action.

There is growing momentum behind an initiative proposed by French economist Gabriel Zucman, in which a minimum wealth tax of 2 per cent would raise US$200-US$250 billion per year globally from 3,000 billionaires who currently pay little to no tax. Current evidence suggests ultra-high-net worth individuals have an observed pre-tax rate of return to wealth of 7.5 per cent on average per year during the last four decades, while the current effective tax rate is equivalent to roughly 0.3 per cent of their wealth.

Alternatively, the Austrian Institute for Economic Research thinks that a global financial transactions tax of 0.1 per cent could yield between US$238 billion and US$419 billion per year. Needless to say, the rich who control the electoral process in countries across the world will not allow such tax increases.

There are two big-ticket items in global fiscal spending which could be cut. The largest is subsidies on fossil fuels, which were US$7 trillion or 7.1 per cent of global GDP in 2022. On top of that, global military expenditure was US$2.4 trillion in 2023.

Perhaps the best way to increase global funding is to raise the capital of the global multilateral development banks such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. If the countries which control the special drawing rights of the IMF can apply their US$650 billion in 2021 to increase the bank’s capital by eight times the leverage, these multilateral development banks can increase their lending by about US$5 trillion.

However, doing so would require these countries to agree that this is a priority, which could be unlikely given the current global atmosphere leaning towards protectionism and isolationism.

In short, the 21st century requires multilateral cooperation in dealing with mutual existential challenges involving climate warming, social imbalances and serious polarisation. If the Bretton Woods framework does not serve the Global South because the established powers are unwilling to reform it, do not be surprised if a new set of institutions rise to replace it.

Andrew Sheng

Andrew Sheng is a former central banker and financial regulator, currently distinguished fellow at the Asia Global Institute, University of Hong Kong. He writes widely on Asian perspectives on

Source link 

French economist Marc Uzan on how China can help ...

Open questions | French economist Marc Uzan on how China can help reshape the global financial system

With the US-led financial consensus at a crossroads, economist Marc Uzan says China has role to play in systemic reform

French economist Marc Uzan is executive director and founder of the Reinventing Bretton Woods Committee, a non-profit organisation established in 1994 to address issues related to the world’s financial architecture. He has been working closely with central banks and finance ministries around the world, as well as international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Group of 20, to bring stakeholders together to attempt to fix the system.

In this latest interview in the Open Questions series, Uzan reflects on the decades of change since the paradigmatic Bretton Woods conference in 1944, and the role China and other emerging economies will play in the global financial system during an era of heightened unilateralism and confrontation. This interview first appeared in SCMP Plus. For other interviews in the Open Questions series, click here.

As suggested by the name of your organisation, the Reinventing Bretton Woods Committee, why did you think that the Bretton Woods system should be restructured back in 1994? Can it be?

This question brought a multitude of thoughts about the objectives of the 44 nations whose representatives gathered at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the summer of 1944 to establish a new economic order.

The world has changed considerably since then. Instead of a system of fixed exchange rates among major currencies, we now have a mixed system with major floating currency areas but fixed rates among smaller countries. At that time, we had capital controls, and now we are a global financial market. And from a small group of 44 countries that became the founding members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Worl 

U.S. debt just hit $35 trillion. Is it putting the global economy at 

risk ...

This nation’s gross cumulative debt has hit $35 trillion — a number so large, the International Monetary Fund warns that it’s putting the entire global economy at risk. 

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/08/13/u-s-debt-just-hit-35-trillion-is-it-putting-the-global-economy-at-risk/

Related posts:

Will US debt ceiling deadlock push capital to yuan market?

Abuse of hegemony is why de-dollarisation is trending

China, Brazil to trade in local currencies

World witness peace, development, cooperation, yuan settlement, as Brazil's President Lula starts China tour, shrugs off noise from the West, ties see deeper and wider potential for growth

 China to be pioneer in building new global financial system: scholars