More on Failed Democracy in the US

More on democracy in the US.  It says what I tried to express in an earlier post.  Our democracy is not standing up to our hopes and expectations, and inequality is the most terrible result of this failure.  The electorate is being sold policies that basically will hurt most of us in the future when spending on health and social security has to be constrained.

Tocqueville’s observations no longer ring true. America is no longer a land of equality, and it’s largely because our democratic system no longer promotes “the welfare of the greatest possible number.” And that’s because many citizens are only too eager to support policies that are “opposed to their own advantage,” like the then-popular (and apparently still-popular) Bush tax cuts, which shifted the relative tax burden from the rich onto the middle class… What Tocqueville underestimated was the power of money in modern politics and the marketing genius of modern politicians, which have freed democratic politics from the constraints of the actual interests of the majority.

via Democracy in America « The Baseline Scenario.

More on The Dire Economic Future

This could well be the future we are in for, and this is what the City of Coral Gables should consider in reorganizing government, reducing staff and rationalizing pension funds and other benefits.

It could happen that property values will not return for many, many years.  Does this mean that the City of Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County and the State of Florida can keep raising taxes, indifferent to the financial conditions of their residents and businesses?

Read the following for taste of reality (and history).  This explains why my parents, who lived through the Great Depression, were so frugal and conservative with their money.

The Reinharts examined 15 severe financial crises since World War II as well as the worldwide economic contractions that followed the 1929 stock market crash, the 1973 oil shock and the 2007 implosion of the subprime mortgage market.

In the decade following the crises, growth rates were significantly lower and unemployment rates were significantly higher. Housing prices took years to recover, and it took about seven years on average for households and companies to reduce their debts and restore their balance sheets. In general, the crises were preceded by decade-long expansions of credit and borrowing, and were followed by lengthy periods of retrenchment that lasted nearly as long.

via Carmen Reinhart Warns That Economic Recovery Could Be Slow – NYTimes.com.

If Krugman is Right–Coral Gables is in Trouble

I have thought all along that the stimulus package was never enough and that we are going to pay a dear price for a sluggish economy, even if it is technically not a recession (two quarters of a declining economy)

The important question is whether growth is fast enough to bring down sky-high unemployment. We need about 2.5 percent growth just to keep unemployment from rising, and much faster growth to bring it significantly down. Yet growth is currently running somewhere between 1 and 2 percent, with a good chance that it will slow even further in the months ahead. Will the economy actually enter a double dip, with G.D.P. shrinking? Who cares? If unemployment rises for the rest of this year, which seems likely, it won’t matter whether the G.D.P. numbers are slightly positive or slightly negative.

via Op-Ed Columnist – This Is Not a Recovery – NYTimes.com.

Inequality in the US

More inequality is not good for the US economy and society. Especially, when the inequality is encouraged directly by government policies.  Rich getting richer will not help return the economy to a better balance nor will it lead miraculously to more growth and more tax revenues–it will do just the opposite.

Tax policy is one of the best tools we have to help offset the troubling trend of growing inequality. Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts have had the opposite effect, providing much larger benefits — both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income — to people at the very top than to middle- and lower-income people. People making more than $1 million get an average of about $124,000 each year in tax cuts, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The main reason, of course, is the large tax cuts targeted specifically at high-income households.

So this fall, when policymakers decide whether to extend the high-end tax cuts, they should keep in mind just how unequal incomes in the United States have become. As former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder wrote recently in the Washington Post, is the rationale for extending these tax cuts “that America needs more income inequality? Seems to me we have enough.” To me, too.

via Economist’s View: “Inequality and the High-End Bush Tax Cuts”.