Der Spiegel on "A Superpower in Decline"

Sometimes the most clear-eyed analysis of the United States comes from outside the country, and this may be especially true in these times when so many Americans are frightened and angry about the way things are going. Germany's weekly newsmagazine Der Spiegel has published a long and thoughtful piece about the United States, entitled "A Superpower in Decline: Is the American Dream Over?" which reflects and updates many of the themes I raised in The End of the American Century.

For those who would dismiss Spiegel's analysis as biased, left-wing, or "socialist," I should point out that the magazine is generally considered to have a conservative (and capitalist!) slant. It is enlightening, and a little sobering, to read an intelligent analysis of our problems from outside the cauldron of contemporary U.S. politics.

Below are a few excerpts from the Spiegel article, though I would encourage everyone to read the whole thing.

• America has long been a country of limitless possibility. But the dream has now become a nightmare for many. The US is now realizing just how fragile its success has become -- and how bitter its reality. Should the superpower not find a way out of crisis, it could spell trouble ahead for the global economy.

• Americans have lived beyond their means for decades. It was a culture long defined by a mantra of entitlement, one that promised opportunities for all while ignoring the risks.

• The country is reacting strangely irrationally to the loss of its importance -- it is a reaction characterized primarily by rage. Significant portions of America simply want to return to a supposedly idyllic past.

• The rich keep getting richer, with the top 0.1 percent of income earners making more money than the 120 million people at the bottom of the income scale.

• Since the beginning of the millennium, no new jobs are being created on balance, because the US economy has undergone structural change. Companies are dominated by investors interested only in the kinds of quick and large profits that can be achieved by reducing the workforce.

• In 1978, the average income for men in the United States was $45,879. In 2007, it was $45,113, adjusted for inflation.

• How strong is the cement holding together a society that manically declares any social thinking to be socialist?

• The United States of 2010 is a country that has become paralyzed and inhibited by allowing itself to be distracted by things that are, in reality, not a threat: homosexuality, Mexicans, Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, health care reform and Obama.

Global Debt Comparison

Britain's Economist magazine online has a very interesting and useful interactive map on global debt, showing the public debt levels of most countries in the world. One can slide the tabs to look at past years, or projections for future years. Pop up graphics also show public debt per capita and as a percentage of GDP.

A striking feature of the global map is that it is mostly the wealthy countries (North America, Europe and Japan) that have the highest debt levels worldwide. Some of the online commentary on this phenomenon point out that many of these countries are actually in worse shape than the U.S., in terms of government debt levels.

My friend and colleague Jeff Payne (who this semester is teaching a course using The End of the American Century as one of the texts), called my attention to this Economist site, and made the following observation:

It seems the US is indeed taking out extreme debt over the recession, but not in the same level of GDP as many other developed countries. So, among the most developed nations, we are not the worst - do not know if that is anything to celebrate. Yet, in relation to your research program I wonder what this means...is the American experiment exhausted, or is the entire Western world in that same situation?

My response would be that yes, most of the Western world has government debt problems. I see the U.S. situation as far more dire, though, for the following reason. Most of those other countries accumulated their debts while financing government programs that supported health care, social welfare, education, infrastructure and the environment. Most other wealthy countries are far ahead of the U.S. in all those dimensions, as I point out in my book. The U.S., in contrast, accumulated our huge debts largely by financing consumption and military spending. All the while, U.S. health care and education languished, poverty and inequality increased, the environment and infrastructure deteriorated. So at the starting gate of the new global order, the U.S. is way behind the rest of the developed world, and too broke to catch up.

The End of the American Century Published in Paperbound

The End of the American Century is now available in paperback, with a newly added epilogue on the Obama Presidency, entitled "Reality and Hope in the Obama Era." (See the next post for the first page of the epilogue). The book is available from the publisher at the link at the top of this page, and also from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc.



(For readers who purchased the hardbound edition, and would like to see the epilogue, send me an email and I will provide you with that chapter.)

The Bankruptcy of American Economics

It is not just the American economy that is bankrupt, but the profession of economics as well. It is partly the interaction of these two that has led to the collapse of the American economy and the huge economic hole we find ourselves in.


Paul Krugman provides a devastating critique of his own profession in the Sept. 6 New York Times Magazine , in an essay entitled “How Did Economists Get it So Wrong?” Krugman, a Princeton economist, New York Times columnist and Nobel prize winner, believes that

American economics, as a field “got in trouble because economists were seduced by the vision of a perfect, frictionless market system.”

The profession was blind to the possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy, he asserts.

In a June lecture at the London School of Economics, Krugman argued that most

macroeconomics of the past 30 years was “spectacularly useless at best, and positively harmful at worst.”

Others besides Krugman are dissecting the economics field, and finding serious problems with it. Britain’s influential Economist magazine had a cover story (7/18) on “Modern Economic Theory: Where it Went wrong—and how the crisis is changing it.” They quote the LSE’s Willem Buiter saying that a training in modern macroeconomics was “a severe handicap” at the onset of the financial crisis. The main problem was that in many macroeconomic models, insolvencies simply cannot occur.
So much for those models.

The problem of economics is even worse, I think, because the discipline has been so intolerant of dissenting views. Modern economic theory is as much an ideology as anything else, with a faith in the market that ignores both reality and those who challenge the dominant paradigm. As the New York Times put it in a story last March:

“For years, economists who have challenged free market theory have been the Rodney Dangerfields of the profession. Often ignored or belittled because they questioned the orthodoxy, they say, they have been shut out of many economics departments and the most prestigious economics journals. They got no respect.”

I saw this firsthand at my university a decade ago, when we were attempting to create a department of economics within the college of liberal arts and sciences. I was on the search committee to hire an economics professor to begin building that program. But it soon became clear that there was a basic inconsistency between the goals of the liberal arts curriculum—free inquiry, critical thinking, competing ideas—and that of the economics profession. The candidates we considered most interesting , with provocative ideas and wide-ranging interests, were largely outcasts in their own discipline, which favored narrow specialties, and strict adherence to the free market ideology. “They got no respect” from the economics discipline, so didn’t have the necessary credentials, and couldn’t be hired. Eventually, the university gave up on trying to create an economics department in the liberal arts college.

Not only is the narrow ideology of modern American economics inconsistent with the traditions of critical thinking, it has proved totally incompetent at predicting the crisis, or figuring out how to get out of it. There are a few exceptions, like Paul Krugman, Yale’s Robert Schiller, and Columbia’s Joseph Stiglitz—all Nobel laureates—and some economics writers like the New York Times’ David Leonhardt. But until now, most of them have been voices in the wilderness, trying unsuccessfully to point out the problems of mounting debt, growing inequality, and neglect of economic and social infrastructure.

President Obama , I believe, recognizes the problems and is trying to remedy them, but he is caught in a vise between huge accumulated needs of the U.S.—for example in health care and education—and the unprecedented level of government and consumer debt.

From an outsider’s perspective—that of a non-economist—it seems to me that the problem is pretty obvious and simple, and the solution is equally obvious and simple, but horribly painful. The problem is that for a generation, American government and citizens have both been living well beyond their means, borrowing to pay for the plethora of consumer goods most of us enjoy. But in the meantime, we have neglected the poor, the schools, the health care system, infrastructure, the environment, and most of the rest of the world. We have lots of goodies, but the society is ailing, and we have passed the buck to the next generation.

The painful solution is that Americans will have to spend and consume less, pay more in taxes, and be prepared for a long-term contraction in the economy. There is evidence of this already, with people finally beginning to save, and to practice “consumer thrift.” But more saving and less spending simply contributes to a contraction of the economy. Banks, retailers, the service and entertainment industry have all depended on people borrowing to spend. As this changes, all these industries will decline, and the economy will decline.

Most American economists, including those with the President, are predicting an imminent end to the recession, and a relatively quick economic recovery. So far, virtually all such predictions have proved overly optimistic and wrong. I think those predictions are based on flawed economic models, and do not account for the depths of the hole we have dug ourselves into. We are in for a very long slog.

While I agree with President Obama and Professor Krugman on most things, I disagree with them that the solution is more spending, by government and consumers, to prime the economy. What we need now is belt-tightening, and a return to a more modest standard of living—perhaps comparable to what we had in the 1970s. This will entail a continuing and severe contraction of the U.S. economy, to return to equilibrium. In the long run, though, it will be best for both the U.S. and the rest of the world.

But you won’t hear this from many economists

Entering A Systemic Revolution

The collapse of the United States as the global hegemon constitutes a “systemic revolution” that will transform both the U.S. and the rest of the globe. Such a revolution is different from “normal” political revolutions, which entail an overthrow of the government. A systemic revolution ushers in even broader and more enduring changes in economy, society and culture, and it also transcends national boundaries, affecting other countries and the global system itself. It is a global paradigm shift, and we are right smack in the middle of it.

This is the opening paragraph of my article "Entering a Systemic Revolution" which appears in the online journal Logos: A Journal of Modern Society and Culture (volume 8, issue 2). The article can be accessed here through my Selected Works page.

The article is a revised version of a lecture I gave in March at a conference on "The Past and Future of Revolutions" at Northeastern Illinois University.

In the article, I compare the current global situation to previous "systemic revolutions", among them the French Revolution of 1789, the Industrial Revolution, the Darwinian Revolution, and the anti-communist revolutions of 1989. Like those epochal changes, the domestic and international decline of the U.S. will affect both the United States and the rest of the world, and will bring fundamental and global changes in politics, economics, culture, and ideology.

Federal Debt Approaches 100% of GDP

Even when The End of the American Century went to press in early 2008, the U.S. federal debt was reaching alarming levels, and was a central element of my forecasts of U.S. economic decline. At that point, the White House's Office of Management and Budget projected the gross federal debt to expand to $10.6 trillion by 2009, constituting 72% of GDP.

Since then, the federal red ink has become a tidal wave. The OMB now expects the debt at the end of this year to be $12.7 trillion, and to expand to over $15 trillion by 2011, which would then be (at 97% of GDP) almost as large as the entire economy (see chart).



David Leonhardt of the New York Times, one of the few economists to have been tracking and raising concerns about the deficits, writes that erasing the deficits "will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade." In his article "Sea of Red Ink" in the June 10 issue, he reports on a New York Times analysis of the composition of the debt accumulation over the last decade, "with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II."

The analysis finds that the growth in the federal debt since 2001 comes from four main sources. The first, the business cycle (especially the 2001 recession and the current downturn) is the largest component, accounting for 37%. Another 33% of the recent debt comes from legislation signed by President Bush, including his tax cuts. Another 20% derives from President Obama's continuation of several Bush policies, including spending on the Iraq War and the Wall Street bailouts. Only about 10% comes from new Obama policies, including the stimulus bill, and news spending on health care, education, energy and other areas.

Leonhardt sees little hope that the Obama administration can reduce or eliminate the deficits with "pay-as-you-go" government spending plans. The solution, he writes, "is no mystery" and involves inevitable tax increases and government spending cuts. These are political tinderboxes, of course, and pose a huge challenge to President Obama's leadership skills.

The End of the American Century, Global Change and China

The following is a slightly edited version of my lecture in Shanghai on May 9 on "The End of the American Century, Global Change and China." The lecture was accompanied by a powerpoint presentation with much of the data and evidence I referred to, and the lecture was translated simultaneously into Chinese (see previous post on details of the forum).
----------------

Perhaps it is no accident that the first translation of The End of the American Century is into Chinese, since China is the most prominent “rising power” mentioned in a book that is primarily directed at the decline of the one power that has been dominant for the last half-century. The role of China is also important because of the huge and growing size of the Chinese economy, and the multifaceted interdependence of China and the United States. In my book, I see raw military power as increasingly irrelevant both for the United States and for other countries, as the biggest problems the world is facing—climate change, environmental deterioration, pandemic disease, poverty, terrorism, etc.—are simply not susceptible to military solutions. Addressing those problems requires international cooperation. Such cooperation also facilitates trade and economic growth, which are keys to reducing the poverty and inequality that provide the breeding ground for discontent and violence.

I understand that most of you are involved in business, trade or finance in various capacities, so I will focus my remarks today on economic issues, at least those in the United States. Given the scope and speed of the global financial collapse, economic issues are, indeed, on the minds of just about everyone. The U.S. economy is a core aspect of my treatment of the decline of the U.S. as a global power—but it is by no means the only one. And while I do, necessarily, devote a lot of attention to economics, I am myself a political scientist rather than economist. What I do in my book, and want to do here, is to look at the varied and interrelated dimensions of U.S. decline. Because it is the symbiosis of all these aspects of U.S. and global change that makes the current situation so distinctive, even unique. Many analysts in the U.S. see the current economic predicament of the country to be similar to those of other economic downturns in recent decades. I believe the combination of U.S. economic, social and political decay, and the simultaneous rise of other countries in the world—like China—means a much different outcome and future for the United States.

For those of you who have not yet read my book, let me provide a summary of the overall approach. Keep in mind that the English version of my book went to press in early 2008, well before the ongoing economic collapse of the United States, and appeared in English in the fall, just as the scale of the catastrophe was unfolding. The essential argument of my book is that the U.S. has come to the end of its long period of economic affluence and global dominance. Most Americans—even, at last, the experts!—are starting to see the handwriting on the wall now, as we see collapsing around us the stock market, housing markets, job markets, banks, manufacturing, retail stores and news media. These are all interrelated, and driven by longer term problems that pressed against us before President Obama, and even before the disastrous administration of George W. Bush. The 20th Century, often called “The American Century” had already come to a close before the awful terrorist attacks of September 11.

America’s decline is a result of three convergent and interrelated phenomena: the deterioration of the U.S. itself—especially in the economic realm but in many other respects as well; the increasing influence of other global powers; and the changed nature of global interactions. The decade-long convergence of all three of these phenomena marks a global shift of historic proportions, and one that defines a much different place in the world for the United States and its citizens.

The central aspects of U.S. decline is economic. The federal government, the state governments, and most households have been living beyond their means for a generation, and the result is unprecedented levels of government, household, mortgage and consumer debt. Americans citizens spend and consume more than they earn, and the United States as a whole consumes more than it produces. This has posed a burden on the rest of the world that is unsustainable in the long run. I will come back to these economic issues in a few minutes.

The U.S. has also fallen behind other countries in many other areas where we flourished during The American Century. The educational system, once considered the world’s best, now ranks near the bottom among developed countries. Health care shows the worst results, on average, of any of the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The U.S. has higher poverty rates, more violence, and greater inequality than almost any other OECD country. Our roads, highways, bridges and dams—most built near the beginning of the American Century—are decrepit and in need of major investments. Even the country’s vaunted political system, tarnished by private interests, money and low levels of political participation, is no longer a model for emulation much of anywhere in the world.
While the U.S. has been on a long slide, both with our domestic health and our international reputation, other countries and regions have been moving ahead, and gaining confidence and clout. China is now the world’s workshop, and has the fastest sustained economic growth of any country in history. The European Union has brought together 27 countries into a peaceful and healthy community—an economic bloc bigger than the U.S. and with many countries more successful than the U.S. in providing health care, education and welfare to their citizens. Many other countries are increasingly prosperous, confident and assertive, to the point of challenging U.S. dominance in their own parts of the globe.

In addition, globalization has changed the rules of the game. Labor and capital move more easily around the world, making it more difficult for the U.S.—or any government—to control economic development. Organizations that span national borders—international and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, terrorist groups--are for good or ill challenging the power and influence of countries. All of this make global politics more complex, and less subject to the influence of single nation-states, especially go-it-alone ones as the U.S. has been for the last eight years.

President Obama is making noble efforts to bolster America’s global reputation and reverse its decline, but in my view, it is too little and too late. The rest of the world has already caught up or caught on, and is not much interested in the U.S. resuming its global leadership. Furthermore, what the world needs now, in confronting problems--of global warming, pollution, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, poverty and epidemic disease—is cooperation and compromise rather than “leadership.”

In my book, I buttress all of these assertions by using data, showing both trend data over time in the U.S., and data comparing the U.S. to other wealthy countries. In both kinds of comparisons the US does not fare very well. Let’s look at some of these figures, focusing on the economic ones.

The End of the American Century can be seen as a descendant of the 1985 book by the Yale historian Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Kennedy studied the big empires of the past—Rome, Britain, Spain, among others—and concluded that each of them foundered on what he called “imperial overstretch.” This is the tendency for big powers to become so “stretched” by foreign ventures, expansion or wars that they end up bankrupting themselves at home, leading to social and economic decay. Kennedy predicted in the mid-1980s that the same thing would happen to the Soviet Union, and even hinted that the U.S. was also vulnerable to the problem of imperial overstretch and debt. When he published that book in 1985, the U.S. federal debt was about 45% of the economy (GDP), which Kennedy said was historically unprecedented for any large power in peacetime. The only exception was France on the eve of the French Revolution.

But look what happened in the two decades after the publication of Kennedy’s book. The US federal debt mushroomed from less than half of GDP to over two-thirds of GDP. The problem escalated with the administration of G.W. Bush, who sharply increased defense spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while simultaneously cutting income taxes. When I wrote my book in 2007-2008, I thought the size of the debt was alarming, as it approached $10 trillion. But then the financial crisis hit the United States, the stock market collapsed (by half), unemployment skyrocketed, and Congress and the President approved huge financial bailout plans that sent the federal debt even higher. The federal budget of the new Obama administration, calling for huge new spending on education, health care, infrastructure and the environment (all vitally needed but terribly expensive), is sending the federal debt burdens to levels unseen since World War II. Within a few years, even according to the President’s optimistic assumptions, the gross federal debt will reach 100% of the size of the economy. I should point out that these huge debt levels do not even include the “unfunded liabilities” for Social Security and Medicare, which would add another $45 trillion. The government has put aside no money to pay for retirement and health care benefits for senior citizens, who will increase greatly in numbers as the “baby boomers” begins retiring in the next few years.

The federal government debt, though, is only one aspect of the multiple levels of indebtedness in the United States. Another aspect of this is the trade deficit. For most of the years since World War II, the U.S. maintained a rough balance of exports and imports. But during the 1990s, as imports soared and exports declined, the trade balance got seriously out of whack, reaching records levels in both absolute terms and as a percent of GDP. The huge increase in imports, many of them from China, helped the U.S. standard of living, but was not matched by similar productivity, output or exports from the US.

A third aspect of US debt—what some called the “triple deficit”—is household and consumer debt. Over the last two decades, Americans have built up record levels of consumer debt. The household savings rate (savings as a percent of household income) have always been relatively low in the US compared to other countries, but in the last twenty years have declined sharply. By 2005, this number had dipped below zero for the first time since the Great Depression. Most Americans have saved almost nothing for their retirement years, at a time when most employers are no longer providing retirement pensions for their employees. This presages a sharp decline in the standard of living, and dramatic increases in poverty, as the population ages. On this dimension too, the US compares unfavorably with most other wealthy countries.

The American propensity to spend rather than save is partly a culture phenomenon—the strong strain of materialism in U.S. culture—but also partly due to the increasing influence of the financial services sector in the U.S. in recent years. Manufacturing has declined steadily as a share of GDP in the U.S. The U.S. doesn’t actually produce much any more. Increasingly, manufacturing has been replaced by financial services. Banks and mortgage companies make money by getting people to borrow, and therefore go into debt. One small but telling example of this is the dozens of credit card offers that most Americans get in the mail. I get several such offers a week, for example. But so do many of my students, most of whom have no income at all! As a consequence, credit card debt is at a record high, and the average household has about $10,000 in credit card debt. Consumer and household debt overall totals about $13 trillion—the size of the entire U.S. economy.

The bottom line is that the U.S. has become a consumer society, consuming far more than we produce or earn, and this can not be sustained. Consumption accounts for almost three-quarters of GDP in the US—a record for any large economy in modern history. As we have seen, much of that consumption is fueled by debt. Americans will have to save more and spend less. This will entail a substantial contraction in the U.S. economy, as workers are laid off and consumer spending declines. Unfortunately, this will also mean a decline in tax revenues, just at the time when government spending is increasing. The U.S. stock market has already declined by 50% since its highs of 2008. The economy as a whole is shrinking, at the fastest rate since the Great Depression. Most economists think that this economic decline will bottom out fairly soon, and that the worst is over. But given the problems I have mentioned, I think it is possible that the US GDP could contract by as much as one-third—roughly the same decline that the U.S. experienced during the height of the Great Depression in 1929-1933. It took the U.S. economy about 4 years to recover from that decline.

U.S. economic decline is just one element—albeit an important one—of the diminishing U.S. power, influence and reputation in the world. Global surveys show little enthusiasm around the world now for “American-style” democracy, for the American way of doing business, or for the spread of US customs and ideas. People in most countries think it would be better if another country rivaled the U.S. in military power. And a recent BBC poll of people in 21 countries found many more believing that the U.S. role in the world was “mostly negative” rather than “mostly positive.” China ranked slightly ahead of the U.S. on this question.

At the same time that U.S. power and influence is diminishing, some other countries are growing stronger, more confident and more assertive. Possible rivals for influence with the U.S. include the “BRIC” countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—and also the European Union, which now includes 27 countries with a population and GNP larger than that of the United States. The “rising” BRIC countries have had very fast rates of economic growth in recent years and, at least until the economic crisis this year, were expected to perform even better in the near future. By another measure, the growth in stock market value, these rising powers are also outpacing the U.S. The U.S. stock market grew exceptionally fast from 2002-2007, rising at an average rate of about 15% per year. But each of the BRIC countries experienced stock market growth at least twice that of the U.S. in those years. As a percent of the world’s total stock market, the U.S. share has shrunk by almost half over the last thirty years.

Perhaps even more astonishing is the declining relative influence of U.S. banks, a phenomenon accelerated, of course, by the collapse of so many financial institutions in the U.S. Measured by market capitalization, a year ago four of the largest banks in the world were American. Now only two are. And four of the top ten are now Chinese!

These changes in the U.S. and the rest of the world signal a fundamental transformation of global politics and economics, and will require adjustments by people and governments alike around the world. For the United States and its citizens, these changes will be particularly wrenching. The U.S. economy will decline—probably by a lot, as will the standard of living in the U.S. For Americans used to a rising tide of affluence and spending, this will be a difficult adjustment. And it will also be difficult for Americans, psychologically, to deal with our diminished stature in the globe. Many changes are necessary to help restore America’s economic, social and political health. It seems to me that President Obama is cognizant of these needs, and is moving amazingly rapidly to address them. But the task is a difficult one, and a long-term one.

I am not really in a position to suggest what will happen, or should happen, in China. That is for you to decide, not me! But I was told me you would be interested in how I see all of this affecting China, so let me just mention a few things. First, of all, as should be obvious from my presentation, it seems to me that China is going to have to rely less on the U.S. market for helping fuel China’s economic growth. Americans will simply have to spend less, which means buying less of China’s many exports. It would seem that this would require, and offer the opportunity, for Chinese manufacturers to focus more on the domestic Chinese market, which will inevitably improve the standard of living of people in China. (This is an argument also made by Paul Krugman during his recent visit to China).

Even so, the U.S. and China both need each other for the economic health and development of both countries. And the rest of the world needs these two big powers to cooperate in solving global issues of trade, the environment, poverty, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, etc. So the interdependence of the two countries should continue and increase. China’s growing economy and international influence comes with increasing global responsibilities along these lines as well. China, for example, has now surpassed the United States as the leading emitter of carbon gasses that contribute to global warming. In my mind, global warming is the single greatest threat to the globe, and it requires serious work and attention. The problem can not be solved without the participation and cooperation of the U.S. and China.

Due to what has happened in the U.S., in China, and in the global community, China should by now certainly be considered an equal partner with the U.S. and other big powers in helping to shape this new global environment. I believe, from what your leaders say, that China is ready to play a bigger role in the world. And with a new, enlightened leadership in Washington, I am hoping the feelings will be mutual.

Immobility Furthering Decline

Caleb Hamman

chamman@butler.edu

In a time of financial turmoil and drastic inequality, one would hope the American Dream to be functioning well. This notion, that hard work will bring success to anyone in the United States, has always been central to America’s ideological fabric. Despite such tradition, recent research suggests a need to reevaluate the accuracy of the American Dream.

space

Ongoing work at the Economic Mobility Project (EMP) has been attempting to do just that. A nonpartisan effort funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, EMP has been conducting the most detailed research of U.S. economic mobility to date. Its findings, thoroughly concerning, strongly reinforce the arguments of The End of the American Century.

space

Using longitudinal income data, EMP researchers find the United States to be a more class stratified society than commonly believed. Despite the popularity of “rags to riches” notions, the EMP finds that, on average, children born into the poorest fifth of households have only a 6 percent chance of making it to the top income quintile. Conversely, 42 percent will remain in the poorest group. More than six in ten of these impoverished children never become even middleclass.

space

Similar mobility barriers exist at the top. While 39 percent of children born into the richest income quintile will remain there, only 9 percent will fall to the bottom. EMP finds remnants of mobility remains in the middleclass, although even these children are more likely to fall into poverty than they are to rise to wealth.

space

The project’s findings are particularly disturbing in the areas of gender and race. Women, already suffering multifaceted disparity with men, are also less mobile than their male counterparts. Compared to these, it is considerably harder for women born into poor families to become wealthy. Similarly, it is also easier for wealthy women to become poor.

space

The racial contrast is even starker. Black children are half as likely as their white counterparts to move from extreme poverty to extreme wealth. Simultaneously, black children born into the bottom income bracket are almost twice as likely as white children to remain there. Incredibly, EMP finds that nearly three in four middleclass black children will fall into poverty—a condition tremendously difficult for them to escape.

space

As such findings suggest, the American Dream is not as dynamic as many believe it to be. In fact, U.S. mobility levels are actually lower than those of many developed countries. As the EMP reports, the two major international comparisons to date have placed U.S. mobility levels either last or second-to-last among nations analyzed (which have included mostly Western Europe and Scandinavia). As EMP’s authors put, “the view that America is ‘the land of opportunity’ doesn’t entirely square with the facts.”

space

In light of the numerous economic, political, and social issues contributing to U.S. decline, the discovery of immobility is particularly troubling. As Americans become more economically and politically unequal, the stakes of socioeconomic outcomes continue to rise. That these outcomes are out of the hands of many is more than a contributor to The End of the American Century—it is an issue of fundamental fairness and a contradiction of one of America’s most cherished ideals.

China Now Has Top 3 Banks in World

China now has the three largest banks in the world, measured by market capitalization. This is a stunning change, and yet another indicator of China's rapid emergence as a global economic power. According to a New York Times article, three years ago, China did not have a single bank among the world's top 20. Now it has the top three and four of the top ten.

The United States, due in part to the banking and financial crisis, has dropped considerably in global banking. In 2006, the U.S. had 7 of the top 20 banks, including the top 2. Now it has just 3 of the top 20 and the largest, Morgan Stanley, is rated fifth.

If banking is so crucial to market economies--as Americans are constantly being reminded that it is--then the decline of US banks, in combination with the rise of Chinese ones, provides another example of the relative decline of the United States.

Furthermore, it seems that the Chinese economy, and its banking system, is in position to weather the storm of the global financial and economic meltdown. Most of the big banks in the West lost 20% or more of market value in the first two months of 2009. In China, the top two banks lost only 3% and 8% in value, respectively and the third largest, the Bank of China, actually increased by 5%.

As the New York Times notes, while most of the world is in financial collapse, "China's economy has suddenly become too big--and too healthy, expected to grow by at least 6.3 percent this year--for the rest of the world to ignore."

Kenneth Lieberthal, a Brookings Institution scholar who oversaw White House Asia policy from 1998 to 2000, sees China as one of the first countries to emerge from the current crisis and one of the very few countries that will emerge from it "without having high levels of government debt."

The US Economy Will Shrink (A Lot), and It Should

The U.S. economic stimulus plan passed by Congress aims to regenerate economic growth, spending and consumption. But it is almost certainly bound to fail, and not for the reasons given by partisans on both sides of the Congressional aisle. In spite of the stimulus, the economy will continue to contract. This is inevitable; it is necessary; and it is even desirable. The main task of the government should be protecting those who are displaced and impoverished during this contraction and retrenchment.

The U.S. economy must contract because it is way too large, in numerous respects. It is too large given the U.S. levels of production and exports. It is built largely on consumption and debt, not output. And it is too large for the rest of the world, even given the size and wealth of the country.

The U.S. economy is big—about 28% of global GDP. But the U.S. accounts for only about 8% of global exports; 16% of manufacturing value-added output, and 5% of the world’s population.

The main contributor to the outsized US GDP is consumption, where the U.S. is indeed the world’s leader. Consumption accounts for about 72% of US GDP, which is a record for any large economy in modern history. As we are now learning, this consumption has been built on a mountain of consumer and household debt, which now totals some $13 trillion—approximately the size of the entire U.S. economy. This is unsustainable.

Furthermore, much of U.S. debt is owed to other countries. About half of the federal debt and a quarter of corporate bond debt is held by foreigners. As former Senator Hillary Clinton pointed out in 2007, "16% of our entire economy is being loaned to us by the Central Banks of other nations."

These huge levels of consumption are a drain on the planet, its resources and its people. The U.S. has only 1 in 20 of the globe’s people, but we consume a quarter of the world’s fossil fuels; 29% of “materials” (including minerals, metals and synthetics); 19% of forestry products; and 14% of its water. The U.S. is also the world’s biggest contributor to environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions (a quarter of the world’s total) and global warming. At 5% of the globe, we leave a huge carbon footprint.

In the 1970s Yale historian Paul Kennedy, writing in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, suggested that eventually the U.S. would have to decline to its “natural” share of the world’s wealth and power, which he estimated should be in the 16-18% range, rather than the 30-40% held by the U.S. at that time. This would indicate a cutting of the U.S. economy by half.. But so would many of the economic indicators I mention above. Consumption, debt, and borrowing all need to be reduced by about that amount, as should petroleum and energy use.

Given the hugely bloated size of the U.S. economy, and of U.S. consumption, and of consumer and government debt, it is hard to see how the economic stimulus package will make much of a dent in things. The economy is bound to decline, and needs to.

This contraction has already begun. The country’s GDP shrunk last quarter at an annualized rate of 3.8 %. If this continues, it will be the largest yearly decline in the US economy since 1946. But a much larger decline will be necessary to bring the economy back to a more natural, balanced and sustainable level. The contraction of GDP is likely to continue for several years, at the very least. This would be unprecedented for the postwar period, when only once (1974-75) did the economy contract two years in a row.

Such a decline could be on a scale of that of the 1930s. The main problem then, as now, will be the reduction in employment, and the consequent growth in poverty. It is hopeless throwing good money after bad in an effort to revive growth, consumption and debt. Instead, the federal and state governments should focus on alleviating the suffering that this contraction will entail, by increasing funds for unemployment compensation, Medicaid, welfare, job retraining and education.

Many people will suffer in this transition, and they should be helped. For most people, though, this economic retrenchment will simply mean belt-tightening. Our standard of living will decline, in ways most of us have not experienced before. But we are still a highly developed wealthy country, and will remain so. Once the U.S. economy has stabilized at a more natural size, it will grow again. And this time, it can happen in a way that is not so destructive of the planet, other peoples, and our souls.

More Evidence That Taxes Must Go Up

David Leonhardt, the prescient and hard-headed New York Times economics columnist, states flatly that "your taxes are going up" in his column of Feb. 25. Leonhardt's data and arguments reinforce those I have made in The End of the American Century, in my Op-Ed for the Christian Science Monitor ("This is not the time to cut taxes"); and in other posts here.

Leonhardt argues that if we want the government services that we have come to expect and rely on (like national security, infrastructure, Medicare, education), we need more federal revenues, because at the moment "we are not paying nearly enough taxes to maintain those programs." He sees taxes going up soon, "and the increase will be permanent."



On the upside, Leonhardt argues, there is room for such an increase, and it will probably not hurt economic growth. As he points out, for a half century federal taxes have remained fairly constant relative to the size of the economy--at about 18% of GDP. "But the 18 percent era has to end soon."

In The End of the American Century, I show that US tax rates are low in global comparisons.

"Compared to other wealthy countries, the United States has among the lowest rates of both individual and corporate income taxes, and total tax revenues in the U.S. (as a percentage of GDP) are lower than those in most of the affluent democracies that are members of the OECD [see OECD data here]. Thus, not only is the U.S. spending and consuming more than most countries, but it is not paying for the relatively few benefits that the government provides. This is the crux of the problem of the deficit and the debt."

Leonhardt argues (as I do in my CSM Op-Ed), the "despite all the scary stories you've heard, the evidence that higher taxes necessarily cripple an economy is somewhere between thin and nonexistent." He points out that the fastest postwar economic growth occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, "when the top marginal tax rate was a now-unthinkable 90 percent."

He also points out that it will not be sufficient to simply raise taxes on the very wealthy, as President Obama has proposed. The incomes and wealth of that group have soared in the last decade, as their federal tax rates have declined. So their higher tax rates should be restored.

But, as Leonhardt says, "the problem can't be solved just by taxing the rich." That top 1% pays only about one quarter of federal taxes. So the tax increases will have to spread more widely.

This will be a very difficult task politically. No politician wants to raise taxes. But not to do so will simply pass the problem onto our children, and burden them with an even bigger mountain of debt. We need to start paying for what we get. And especially now, as we launch huge new spending programs for health care, education, infrastructure and banks, we need to shell out for what we are getting.

Obama Imposes CEO Pay Limits

Limiting CEO pay must be in the air! I posted a blog with such a proposal on Saturday, before learning that Senator McCaskill had introduced a bill with similar provisions on Friday. Then yesterday President Obama himself announced executive pay limits, along very similar lines as my own "modest proposal." (Do you think the Prez reads my blog?!!).

According to the New York Times story, these executive pay limits "seek to alter corporate culture" which in my view is long overdue and would be a major accomplishment. According to the Times, "the new rules would set a $500,000 cap on cash compensation forthe most senior exeutives, curtail severance pay when top executives left a company,[and] restrict cashing in on stock incentives until government assistance was repaid."

President Obama observed that "This is America" and "We don't disparage wealth" or people achieving success. But "what gets people upset--and rightfully so--are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages," the President said, "in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste, it's a bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as president." He pointed to this kind of CEO extravagance reflecting "a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else."

Bravo, Mr. President. This may be mostly a symbolic gesture, but symbols are important. What this country needs now, even more than an economic stimulus package, is a change of heart, and a change in the way we think, believe and behave. Just as when the President said "The United States does not torture," he is sending a message to Americans and to the rest of the world that the United States is changing.

(See my previous entries on CEO pay by clicking on the "CEO pay" label in the right sidebar).

Limit Bailout CEO pay to U.S. President's Salary

President Obama called Wall Street bankers "shameful" after reports that they had given themselves some $20 billion in bonuses this year, just as the economy was deteriorating and the government spending billions to bail them out.

Here's a modest proposal: for companies receiving federal bailouts, let's limit the pay of those CEOs to what the President of the United States earns--$400,000.

Once those bailout companies have repaid our tax-paid bailout money, they can return to paying themselves tens of millions of dollars yearly, as they do now.

Indeed, just this week Senator Claire McCaskill (Dem, Missouri) introduced a bill that would cap compensation at $400K for all employees of bailout recipients.

To give you some context, here are the top ten recipients of federal bailout money under the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).


1. Bank of America, $45 billion
2. Citigroup, $45 billion
3. AIG, $40 billion
4. JPMorgan Chase, $25 billion
5. Wells Fargo, $25 billion
6. General Motors, $10.2 billion
7. Goldman Sachs, $10 billion
8. Morgan Stanley, $10 billion
9. PNC Financial, $7.6 billion
10. U.S. Bankcorp, $6.6 billion

And here are the 2007 total compensations for the CEOs of those same firms:

1. Kenneth Lewis, $20.4 million
2. Vikram Pandit, $3.2 million
3. Martin Sullivan, $13.9 million
4. James Dimon, $28.9 million
5. John Stumpf, $11.4 million
6. G. R. Wagoner, $15.7 million
7. Lloyd Blankfein, $54 million
8. John Mack, $41.4 million
9. James Rohr, $14.5 million
10. Richard Davis, $5.9 million

These men are all multimillionaires, even if you only count their take from last year. They can afford to slum it for a while on the salary of the President of the United States. And if these CEOs are genuinely committed to help their companies, and the United States, recover, then they should be willing to forego a little extravagance for a few years. If they are unwilling to do so, then the federal government should appoint a caretaker CEO until the bailouts have been repaid.

The rules of the game have changed. These companies and their CEOs have brought this country to the brink of economic disaster. The government has stepped in to save these companies, as a means of rescuing the economy. There can no longer be any argument that multimillion dollar compensation packages are necessary to attract "talent." It was not true in the past (when CEO salaries were far lower); it is not true in other countries (where CEO salaries are a small fraction of American ones--see chart below); and it is not true now--when this "talent" drove their companies, and the economy, into the ground.

Congress has talked about limiting the pay of bailout CEOs, but they have done nothing about it. It is time. And this idea--of limiting these CEO salaries to the level of the highest paid government executive--was even profferred by Republican John McCain during the campaign:

"no C.E.O. of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American tax dollars, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government.”

CEO Pay as a Multiple of Average Worker Pay, in US and Other Countries

(from The End of the American Century, p. 40.

Retrenchment, Not Recovery

Economists and politicians are debating whether we are in a recession or a depression, and how many months or years it will take to recover from the downturn. As I have argued on this blog and in my book, what is now happening to the economy is not typical or normal. I would call it a "retrenchment" rather than a recession. In that sense, it is a permanent correction, and will result in a substantial and long-term contraction of GDP, the standard of living and the stock market. It will take many years to return to where we were. The problem is that the U.S. government and consumer have both been living on borrowed money for a generation, so that most of the gains of that period are illusory. We were never really that wealthy, and now we have to start paying for that extravagance.

A similar argument is made in an interesting article entitled "Will There Be A Recovery?" by Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He also sees the current situation as different from past recessions. Recovery in the past could be stimulated by cuts in interest rates, allowing consumers to spend more against rising real wages. This would lead the economy to rebound.

Now it is different though. For one thing, for most workers, real wages have remained stagnant for almost twenty years. Consumers have maxed out their credit and can no longer borrow so freely. And interest rates are already at rock bottom levels.

"And there’s another problem," says Roberts. "Much of what American consumers purchase today is made offshore. Stimulating consumer demand in America puts factories back to work, but those factories are located elsewhere in the world." The U.S. consumed more than it produced, by borrowing from abroad. But this source of funds is also drying up now.

These are all themes that I raised in The End of the American Century. While I do not totally agree with all of Roberts' arguments, his overall point is a good one. There will not be a recovery, like recoveries in the past. The task for the U.S., and the Obama administration, is to figure out how to navigate this difficult transition, and to convince U.S. citizens that we can live a good life without all the excesses of the past.

Take a look at Roberts' essay, and offer your thoughts in the Comments section here.

This Is Not the Time To Cut Taxes

My op-ed piece, "This is not the time to cut taxes: To increase federal revenue, taxes must go up, not down," appears in the 1/13/09 issue of The Christian Science Monitor, accessed at the link above. There I write that

"talk of tax cuts may be music to the ears of American taxpayers and a nod to satisfy Republicans but they make no sense in a time of soaring budget deficits and huge new government expenditures, including the probability of $1 trillion for Obama's proposed economic stimulus plan."

I conclude the article with these thoughts:

"Obama should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of next year, for everyone except the very needy. He should also raise the marginal tax rates for the very wealthy. These rates are very low by both historical and international standards. Increased taxes will be unwelcome and painful, but the US is in a situation as unprecedented and dangerous as that of the Great Depression. Obama himself has called on Americans for sacrifice. And after two decades of bingeing, we can afford a little sacrifice."

I.O.U.S.A. Video On the Toxic Mix of U.S. Debts

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation has produced a documentary video about the roots of the financial crisis in the U.S., entitled "I.O.U.S.A.: One Nation, Under Stress, in Debt". This link takes you to a 30-minute "bite sized" version of the documentary for viewing online.

Pete Peterson, former Republican Secretary of Commerce, published the book Running on Empty in 2004, which pointed out the toxic nature of the unprecedented "triple deficits" bedeviling the U.S. economy: the budget, trade and household deficits. This film dramatically and powerfully illustrated these deficits and shows how much worse they have gotten in the last eight years. The budget deficits, as a share of the economy, are nearing levels not seen since World War II. The U.S. trade deficit (importing more than we export) is at record levels, and is the largest in the world. And household debts are the worst since the Depression.

As the moderator of the show says at the beginning, the most serious threat to the U.S. is not terrorism, but "our own fiscal irresponsibility."

As I have pointed out on this site, and in my book, these economic problems are the starting point of The End of the American Century, but they are only part of a much bigger set of problems. Pete Peterson and his video say that we have to raise taxes and cut spending. This is probably true. But how do we do this during an economic crisis, and when we face monumental problems--with education, health care, the environment, infrastructure, poverty--that require more resources, not less?

The video is worth watching, and very sobering.

Fukuyama: From "The End of History" to "The Fall of America"

Francis Fukuyama, Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (my own alma mater), had a high profile essay in Newsweek in October, boldly titled “The Fall of America, Inc.” Professor Fukuyama addresses the declining global appeal of America’s “brand.” Two “fundamentally American ideas have dominated global thinking since the early 1980s,” he contends. The first of these was “a certain vision of capitalism” accompanied by “pared-back government.” The second idea was “America as a promoter of liberal democracy around the world.”

Fukuyama sees both of these ideas now tarnished and discredited. The U.S. economy “has gone off the rails and threatens to drag the rest of the world down with it. Even worse,

“the culprit is the American model itself: under the mantra of less government, Washington failed to adequately regulate the financial sector, and allowed it to do tremendous harm to the rest of society.”

The idea of American democracy was “tarnished even earlier,” with the freedom agenda of the Iraq War widely perceived around the world as “an excuse for furthering U.S. hegemony.”

In my book The End of the American Century, I make similar arguments about the decline of brand U.S, but I show that this decline started long before the recent financial collapse, and even before the Iraq War. Global public opinion surveys in recent years have shown little enthusiasm for “American-style democracy” and even less support for the American ways of doing business. And while Fukuyama uses the term “brand” as a metaphor, there actually have been marketing surveys of the popularity of “nation brands” among consumers around the world. In one such study, the United States ranked eleventh out of twenty-five countries.

Fukuyama’s Newsweek essay is interesting both for its perceptive insights, but also because of who he is and what he has written and argued in the past. He gained national prominence in 1989 with the publication of an influential and controversial article titled “The End of History?” In that essay, and a following book, he argued that the collapse of European communism and the end of the Cold War marked “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” Later he became a key figure in the neoconservative movement and its Project for the New American Century which, among other initiatives, strongly encouraged the removal from power of Saddam Hussein, even before September 11. By 2002, though, he had turned away from the neoconservatives, and became critical of the Bush administration and the Iraq War.

Much has changed in the world since the Western triumphalism following the collapse of communism. It has become painfully clear, for one, that many people around the world—perhaps even most people—are not so convinced that Western liberal democracy is—or should be—“the final form of human government.” Even so, it is quite startling to see one of the intellectual fathers of the neoconservative movement so frankly recognizing the failure of the American model to take hold in the rest of the world. As Fukuyama concludes his essay,

“the ultimate test for the American model will be its capacity to reinvent itself once again. Good branding is not, to quote a presidential candidate, a matter of putting lipstick on a pig. It’s about having the right product to sell in the first place. American democracy has its work cut out for it.”

Zakaria's Optimism

Fareed Zakaria is everywhere these days, articulating a message similar to mine in The End of the American Century. But I think he underestimates the seriousness of the situation facing the United States.

Zakaria had the lead article last summer in Foreign Affairs’ issue on “Is America in Decline?” His book The Post-American World appeared shortly thereafter, and soon became a best seller. As an editor of Newsweek, his columns appear there regularly, and the October 20th issue of the magazine featured him on the front cover, with the title “The Bright Side” against a cheery yellow background. He even has his own television show, “Fareed Zakaria’s GPS,” where last week he endorsed Barack Obama as the best hope for America’s future.

Zakaria argues that it is not so much that the U.S. is in decline, but that other powers have risen, requiring the U.S. to deal with them with more consultation and compromise. He believes that the U.S. “has the strength and dynamism to continue shaping the world” (Foreign Affairs) and that “the world is moving our way” (The Post-American World). He sees a “silver lining” in the current economic crisis, in that the country will be forced “to confront the bad habits it has developed over the last few decades” (Newsweek).

These bad habits include spending and consuming more than we produce, leading to record levels of household debt, which has grown from $680 billion in 1974 to $14 trillion today. Spiraling consumer debt has been matched by the government. “The whole country has been complicit in a great fraud,” he writes in Newsweek. He quotes the economist Jeffrey Sachs:

“We’ve wanted lots of government, but we haven’t wanted to pay for it.”

He believes the current crisis will force greater fiscal “discipline” by both families and government, recognizing that “this discipline will be painful for a country that has gotten used to having it all.” It will also be good for our country’s foreign policy. Being the only superpower “has made Washington arrogant, lazy and careless.” Perhaps we could get away with this arrogance when we were on top of the world. But things have now changed.

“We cannot keep preaching to the world about democracy and capitalism while our own house is so wildly out of order.”

My book, and this blog, make similar arguments, and I agree with all of this, but especially that last sentence, which appears near the end of Zakaria’s Newsweek essay. However, I think Zakaria understates just “how wildly out of order” our system has become. Record consumer and government debts and a bankrupt financial system and foreign policy, as bad as those are, constitute only parts of the problem. At the same time that we have been madly spending on consumer goods, wars and debt servicing, we have let languish education, health care, infrastructure, science and technology. We have shuffled to the side the hugely expensive fixes required for Social Security and Medicare. Poverty and inequality are higher in this country than a generation ago, and among the highest in the developed world. Even our vaunted democracy, eroded by money and abuse of executive power, is no longer such a beacon for other countries. A major part of my book shows how all these interrelated problems result in a much more serious situation than Zakaria recognizes.

While we seem prepared to spend a trillion dollars bailing out a financial system led by incompetent billionaires, we need at least that much to fix the health care system, not to mention these many other neglected issues. It is difficult to see where the resources will come from to mend our society, once the banks are taken care of. It will require many years to restore the United States, and a change in America’s mindset, as well as its priorities.

Zakaria concludes his essay by suggesting that

“if we can learn the right lessons from this crisis, the United States will once more be playing by its own rules.”

I am not quite sure what “the right lessons” are, or what our “own rules” are. I think the needed lessons may be deeper and broader than he suggests, and that we may even have to change the rules. I am not as optimistic as Zakaria, but even without optimism, one can always hope. And this election week offers much hope.

Downplaying and Misrepresenting the Debt

It is bad enough that our political leaders make light of the unprecedented levels of government deficits and debt, as pointed out in a New York Times covers story October 20: "Deficit Rises, And Consensus Is to Let it Grow." The problem is compounded when The Times’ story on the subject totally misrepresents the scale of the problem.

The reporters use a strange method of calculating the burden of the debt, contending that it constitutes “a relatively modest 40.8 percent of the nation’s national income.” In fact, the current federal debt is about two-thirds of gross domestic product, according to official budget figures. The story asserts that the current debt burden is much less than during the 1990s. In fact, The Fiscal Year 2009 Budget estimates the debt at 69.3% of GDP, which is the highest figure since 1955.

The story also misrepresents the size of the current debt when it states that the federal government increased the national debt “to the present $5.8 trillion.” In fact, the current debt is over $10 trillion, and with the bailout bill, Congress raised the ceiling on the debt to $11.3 trillion.

The Times' story does a disservice to its readers with this misinformation, and contributes to the national problem of discounting the gravity of the situation, which could well lead the country into bankruptcy

BBC wonders if this is The End of "The American Century"

BBC "Newsnight" recently had a 10 minute segment entitled "The End of the American Century?" inadvertently (I think) employing the title of my book. The segment begins with a reference (as my book does) to Henry Luce's 1941 "American Century" essay. The opening segment, by Paul Mason (no relation), wonders if the recent financial crisis is "the start of a wider American decline." The broadcast includes commentary by economists Joseph Stiglitz (winner of the 2001 Nobel prize) and Irwin Stelzer, and Gillian Tett of London's Financial Times. The link here is to the youtube posting of the BBC segment, in two parts.