http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/
In November, guest-blogging elsewhere, he wrote a fascinating article with the intriguing title, "How Americans spent themselves into ruin... but saved the world," in which he takes on the lunatics of the right and the (far) left:
http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2009/11/how-americans-spent-themselves-into.html
It's very interesting stuff, quite balanced (I was a bit surprised to see Gen. Douglas MacArthur praised so highly here) and with a unique point of view. Here's an excerpt:
In fact, there has been only one top-nation that ever avoided the addiction to imperial mercantilism, and that was the United States of America. Upon finding itself the overwhelmingly dominant power, at the end of World War II, the U.S. had ample opportunity to impose its own vision upon the system of international trade. And it did. Only, at this crucial moment, something special happened.
At the behest of Marshall and his advisors. America became the first pax-power in history to deliberately establish counter-mercantilist commerce flows. A trade regime that favored the manufactures of many foreign/poor countries over those in the homeland. Nations crippled by war, or by millennia of mismanagement, were allowed to maintain high tariffs, keeping out American manufactures, while sending shiploads from their own factories to the U.S., almost duty free.
Moreover, despite the ongoing political tussle of two political parties and sometimes noisy aggravation over ever-mounting deficits, each administration since Marshall's time kept fealty with this compact -- to such a degree that the world's peoples by now simply take it for granted.
Forgetting all of history and ignoring the self-destructive behavior of other empires, we all have tended to assume that counter-mercantilist trade flows are somehow a natural state of affairs! But they aren't. They are an invention, as unique and new and as American as the airplane, or the photocopier, or rock n' roll.
But recently, Brin wrote another post, on his own blog, about economic matters: "A Primer on Supply-Side vs Demand-Side Economics."
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/02/primer-on-supply-side-vs-demand-side.html
His take isn't so unique here, but it's well worth reading (and despite the title, it's very interesting stuff). Humorously, Brin points out that Karl Marx was the most famous proponent of supply-side economics. But he gives a very clear, very simple explanation of just what "supply-side" and "demand-side" economics are. Every American should read this, because it's critically important today.
His conclusion?
For three decades, SSE proponents told skeptics "just watch and see what will happen!" (Whenever top tax rates were cut.) Okay, we've watched. And absolutely every large-scale forecast made by promoters of Supply Side Economics failed -- diametrically -- without major exception.
The uber-rich did not take their tax-break largesse and invest it in innovative/productive equipment. They poured it into either passive investments -- what Adam Smith derided as "rent-seeking" -- or else risky financial instruments and asset bubbles. Above all, the direct forecast that reduced revenues would erase federal deficits went directly opposite to observed fact.
Well, that's not actually the conclusion to his post. You need to read the whole thing. But that is the part that really struck me. I'm a strong proponent of evidence-based thinking. If the evidence shows that you were wrong, you need to change your mind. And Brin is right about this. We've tried supply-side economics for decades, and it's been a complete and utter failure. How dumb do you have to be to stick with it now?
We should have learned something in recent decades. And using that knowledge, we should know enough to - at the very minimum - decide to try something different. Supply-side economics did turn out to be "voodoo economics," after all. The elder Bush was right (before he kowtowed to the lunatic right-wing - or bowed to the inevitable, however you want to put it).
David Brin does a great job with this kind of thing. He can make the most complicated issues not just understandable, but fascinating.
No comments:
Post a Comment