Crisis / Opportunity

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 17:35


Earlier today, in an attempt to develop a thumbnail metric for how socialist and capitalist a national economy is, I examined where 26 counties fell in a public-private mixed economy continuum. While much of the discussion on the story involved whether this was the proper use of the term "socialism" (some people can get really sensitive over which broad, vague signifiers should be applied to abstract concepts), the lead item of the story remains powerful. Namely, over the last two years, public expenditures as a percentage of GDP has risen dramatically in the United States, from 35.5% in FY 2007 to a projected 44.7% in FY 2009. Outside of World War Two, this is the largest the public sector has been in the US relative to the nation's GDP. The two-year increase of 9.2% is also great than any experienced outside of World War Two. Here is a graphical illustration of trends from 1900 through 2009:


There have been similarly rapid increases in the past, though perhaps not a single, 7.7%, jump that was not directly related to war, which we experienced from 2008-2009.. From 1929 to 1933, public spending rose from 11.3% to 22.4% of GDP. From 1948 to 1954, public spending rose from 20.5% of GDP to 29.3%. On a slightly smaller scale, we went from 30.2% to 34.0% from 1974 to 1976. The sharp, upward climbs punctuating long eras of stability are shown on the graph by the black line and the red arrows.

The two previous, sharp upward gains, from 1929 to 1933 and from 1948 to 1954, were never reversed. The pre-1930 status quo of 11-12% was erased permanently by post-1929 spending. The pre-1948 status quo of around 20% was erased permanently by the 1949-1954 spending increase. The upward movement in the mid-1970's was also never reversed, as we stayed in the mid-30% range for the next 30 years. As such, one of the main question for our times is whether the recent upward shot into the mid-40% range will ever be reversed.

I think that it is important to consolidate our new status in the mid-40% range as, combined with a shift in public expenditures, it would allow us to enter a Western European realm of social investment. Consolidating this upward increase will require finding new sources of government revenue that are easier, from a political perspective, than cutting down the size of the public sector. There are avenues through which that can be achieved, and I will explore them tomorrow (hint: expanding Social Security revenues by eliminating the income cap is both very popular and lucrative). For now, it should suffice to note the historic shift that has occurred, and also the tremendous opportunity it presents the American left. Given that it has been about 60 years since a shift of this magnitude last occurred, it is possible that we won't get another opportunity like this again in our lifetimes. As horrible as the economic downturn has been, it really is a crisis / opportunity point for the American left.  

Chris Bowers :: Crisis / Opportunity

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A few idea (4.00 / 3)
1. Eliminate the social security withholding cap
2. Eliminate "free" LLC's: from now on, any artificial person has to pay income tax. This includes multiple levels of corporations: each layer of corporate protection must come at a cost of taxation.
3. Tax brackets for corporations. Smaller businesses should not pay the same rate as larger ones.
4. Tariffs to equalize cost of labor for imports.
5. Carbon tax
6. Additional tax/fees for all extractive industries
7. Disposal tax on manufacturers of items that become solid waste -- pay your "dump fees" up front.
8. More local control of tax policy: CA prop 13 is an example of taking away local control, and its been bad for CA.

Overall, tax policy is one of the biggest issues moving forward. I've had a positive impression of Obama with regard to taxation.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)


Doesn't look like Obama himself (0.00 / 0)
is on board with your proposal.

According to the column David Brooks wrote about Obama's agenda -- which we now know was based in part on a discussion with Obama himself:

Second, they argue, the Obama administration will not usher in an era of big government. Federal spending over the last generation has been about 20 percent of G.D.P. This year, it has surged to about 27 percent. But they aim to bring spending down to 22 percent of G.D.P. in a few years. And most of the increase, they insist, is caused by the aging of the population and the rise of mandatory entitlement spending. It's not caused by big increases in the welfare state.

The White House has produced a chart showing nondefense discretionary spending as a share of G.D.P. That's spending for education, welfare and all the stuff that Democrats love. Since 1985, this spending has hovered around 3.7 percent of G.D.P. This year, it's about 4.6 percent. The White House claims that it is going to reduce this spending to 3.1 percent by 2019, lower than at any time in any recent Republican administration. I was invited to hang this chart on my wall and judge them by how well they meet these targets. (I have.)

But by all means, dream on.

It's what we've got.


Dream On? (0.00 / 0)
     While, a lot of those idea may not get traction now, there is a majority of Americans who would support some of those ideas.

     Believing that David Brooks's columns are trustworthy. . .well, dream on.  


[ Parent ]
Yeah, because we heard all (0.00 / 0)
the criticism that came out of the WH over all the distortion in Brooks' column. You know, like when he said he had a chart on his wall showing how non-defense discretionary spending was going down to 3.1% and he didn't.

Oh wait, none of that actually happened.

Must have been one of those dreams we've been talking about.  


[ Parent ]
Even Brooksie Can Occassionally Get Something Right (0.00 / 0)
Obama has repeatedly (since his election) sent a number of signals to this effect.  Brooksie isn't the only source on this, alas.  I'm not saying this invalidates Chris's argument.  But it does seem clear that Obama is going to have to be forced to change his thinking.

He still things bailing out bankers is a good idea.  Autoworkers, not so much.  Waitresses?  You've got to be kidding!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
This Became A Subject Of Contention: Brooks vs Erza (0.00 / 0)

     Glenn Greenwald pointed out Erza not doing his job as a journalist correctly--much more nuanced.
     However, there was a big debate in the liberal blopsophere, and Erza's defense was vindicated by a big majority.  Through history, facts, and sound arguments-- the conclusion was settled:  Erza was a much more trustworthy source than Brooks on the specific in contention.

[ Parent ]
De-Privatize Retirement Security (4.00 / 3)
If there are four pillars of social democracy as far as government expenditures go, it's security in healthcare, education, income, and retirement.  

Healthcare means true universal coverage, and as far as we're concerned with the current discussion around healthcare reform, it's a public insurance option like Medicare for all.

Education means greater federal expenditure toward education to establish a system such that everyone has access to a quality public education from Pre-K12 to college.  

Income means basic income supports for all, from unemployment coverage to paid family leave to a reformed AFDC/TANF scheme.  Beyond government expenditures for income security, tighter labor markets would be huge.  The best way to do this is encouraging unionization.  Yes, EFCA is a big piece of the labor law reform we need, but really, social democracy calls for an explicit encouragement of unionization throughout industry.  It democratizes the workplace and the economy.  But I digress...

Retirement means adequate public pensions for all that extends income security into the retirement years.  What we're looking for here is to make Social Security more generous so that it is a reasonable livable income for retirees.  

To fund an increased Social Security, a few things need to happen, all of which have positive consequences beyond old age income security.

First, lifting the cap on FICA is a no-brainer.  This also means that there is increased revenue for Medicare/Medicaid.  It also means a more equitable taxation system.  Even taking money out of the hands of the superwealthy is just good stuff.  It mean that there is less money for use in speculative investment that disrupts capital markets.  And it puts that money in the democratic, public sphere.  Lifting the cap pays for Social Security for far beyond the foreseeable future and puts a huge downpayment on increased benefit payments.

Second, tax capital gains the same as income.  That's what they are anyway, income from capital market investments.  This puts a huge pot of money in the sphere of public monies.  And it de-couples people from the stock market as a means of income.  Not only does this sever the interests of the broad populace from the parasites of finance (not everyone in finance is a parasite, but broadly that's the way the industry functions).  It also returns capital markets to their proper position, the market for capital investment in productive capacities.  

Paul demonstrated on Sunday how FIRE has grown as a share of economic activity.  Money is invested in FIRE now because it's the best place to put money.  When we move away from FIRE as the investment of first resort, we move toward productive capacities as the best investment.  Meaning, we invest more in making and doing things that are productive and valuable.

But back to retirement.  Coupling increased public expenditures on Social Security with a de-emphasis on financial markets for retirement income is more socially democratic and politically more sound (minimizing the political power of the wealthy classes).  And of course, it politically engenders support from a broad swath of people for the valid, positive functions of democratic public institutions.  

***

I also agree with previous suggestions on corporate and individual taxation, and I'll add increases in the top marginal tax rates, expansion of the number of upper-income tax brackets, increase in estate taxation, and a financial transactions tax.  What is great about these ideas is not just that they generate more badly-needed revenue, they also have secondary impacts on the broader economy as outlined above.  


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox