Mer offentlig styring!
Roald B. Larsen
Det er bare absurd når Hagen og FrP kan få seg til å hevde at
finanskrisen oppsto pga. for MYE regulering. Alle skjønner etter hvert
at det er tull.
Velgerne begynner å høre falskheten i lokketonene fra FrP om mindre og
mindre skatt og et bedre og bedre samfunn. FrPs "løsninger" er på vei
ut. De blir mindre og mindre aktuelle, fordi de allerede har vist seg
feilslåtte i FrPs store forbilde USA.
USA'erne trenger nå å betale mer skatt og få mer offentlig styre, så
vil de muligens kunne få et like godt samfunn som vårt, mener den
kjente økonomen Jeffrey Sachs.
Sammenlignet med Europa, Japan og Canada, har USA høyest dødelighet
for barn og nyfødte, dårlige skoleresultater for 15-åringer, den
laveste forventede levealderen og de største underskuddene i forhold
til BNP. En stor største forskjell mellom USAog resten av verden, er
at USA i de siste 30 årene konsekvent har forkastet offentlige
løsninger for områder som helse, fattigdom, skole og miljø.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1870268,00.html
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2009
The Case for Bigger Government
By Jeffrey Sachs
Thirty years ago, Americans were told that government was part of the
problem, not the solution. We bet on the magic of the marketplace, but
the magic proved illusory. Every major part of the economy — health
care, energy, transportation, food and finance — is deeply troubled.
Now we are ready to invite government back in to help solve our
problems, if the price is right and the strategies are convincing. By
spending more through government and treating government as a partner
rather than an enemy of the private sector, we can potentially save
vast sums in the long run through a more efficient health-care system,
safer climate, more competitive economy and more secure country.
President-elect Barack Obama's challenge will be twofold: to capture
the potential benefits of a new age of government activism, while
still protecting the country's long-term fiscal health. On Jan. 6,
Obama warned that the cost of a major stimulus package and the
continued effort to bail out the financial system could result in
years of "trillion-dollar deficits." Deficit spending is needed to
help revive the economy from recession, but trillion-dollar deficits
for years to come would sink us in debt and risk a collapse of the
currency. We need a sensible strategy that deals with the present
crisis while preparing for the future. We need more government, and to
pay for it we'll need to raise taxes relative to GDP over time.
Even as our economy worsened, many Americans consoled themselves with
the belief that at least we were better off than people in other rich
nations. No more. When you compare the U.S. with Canada, Western
Europe and Japan, the news is sobering. Our child-poverty and infant-
mortality rates are the highest, our life expectancy is the lowest,
our budget deficit as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is the
highest, and our 15-year-olds rank among the lowest on tests of math
and science.
A big difference between the U.S. and the rest of the rich world is
that for the past 30 years or so, Americans consistently rejected
"government solutions" to the problems of health, poverty, education
and the environment. We've kept our taxes as a share of national
income lower than Europe's by focusing on the private sector. But
we're getting much less for our money. Markets are great at providing
consumer goods and services. We don't want the government running our
restaurants, movie houses, bookstores and manufacturers. Markets are
not so good, though, at some very important things. A pressing
example: our mostly private health system, at $8,000 per American, is
twice the cost of Europe's mostly public system, yet with worse
outcomes. And nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance.
President-elect Obama inherits the worst economic crisis since the
Great Depression: the financial sector is in ruins; the budget is
hemorrhaging red ink; debt-ridden households have clamped down on
spending, thereby pulling the rug out from under the economy;
unemployment is soaring; the country is in two wars; and the unmet
social and environmental needs are vast. These conditions demand a
fundamental realignment in strategy that ultimately comes back to
taxation: Will we pay for the government we need? Obama's big domestic
program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, proposes
doubling renewable-energy production and making public buildings more
efficient. It calls for better schools and classrooms and the
rebuilding of our crumbling roadways and bridges. The President-elect
wants our fill-out-the-forms health-care system to be computerized,
which will save both lives and money. (See the global financial crisis
in photos.)
He'll certainly have to add to that list. Don't forget bailing out the
financial system, helping deficit-ridden state and local governments,
revamping the auto industry and funding more global-development
assistance to defeat terrorism and overcome instability. Add it up and
it will require perhaps 5% of national income on top of our current
spending, or approximately 25% of our total GDP.
Here's the problem with that math: the tax system brings in about 18%
of GDP, less in a recession — and Obama is even floating a two-year,
$300 billion tax cut (roughly 1% of GDP per year). Even worse, our
federal revenues are nearly exhausted by just four areas of spending:
Social Security and other retirement programs, health programs such as
Medicare and Medicaid, defense, and interest payments on the public
debt. Almost all the rest of our expenditures — from education and
infrastructure to international diplomacy and much more — have to be
funded by borrowing. We are racking up trillions of dollars in debt,
to be paid in the future through taxation or inflation, in order to
carry the year-in, year-out responsibilities of government.
There are certainly some straightforward ways to start closing the
budget gap. The Bush tax cuts for the rich should be rolled back this
year, not next, to start collecting about 0.5% of GDP in extra
revenues from those who can most easily pay, though this might just
partly offset other tax cuts and recession-induced declines in tax
collections. The spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should
be ended, not prolonged, saving at least 1% of GDP. We'd still
probably be close to $1 trillion (perhaps 6.5% of GDP) shy of budget
balance. With the economy in a tailspin, deficit financing of up to $1
trillion could make sense, but it's a fleeting option because foreign
nations have lost confidence in the U.S. economy and currency.
Instead, we will have to look for a variety of solutions.
Infrastructure can be financed in part by borrowing against future
user fees, like tolls on roads and higher electricity rates for more
reliable and cleaner power, rather than against general government
revenues. This strategy can probably cover as much as 1% of GDP per
year. We can introduce new taxes on the carbon emissions from coal,
oil and gas to hasten our transition to sustainable energy. For
example, instead of letting gasoline prices tumble now only to see
them soar again shortly, we could set a floor on prices at the pump
and collect the difference between the wholesale and retail prices in
federal revenues. Various carbon and gasoline taxes could raise
another 1% or so of GDP. The public will also probably accept taxes on
health care if they convincingly help save even more in private
outlays on health insurance. A well-managed system of public financing
of health care can do that and allow us to cut the horrendous sums
paid to health-insurance companies. And in the end, though almost no
U.S. politician will say it now, the U.S. will probably have to follow
Europe down the path of the value-added tax — a kind of national sales
tax.
In the past 50 years, arguing for tax increases to fund the expansion
of federal programs has been a political death wish. Lyndon Johnson
could not sell the public on tax increases to pay for his War on
Poverty when the Vietnam War intruded. Jimmy Carter failed to close
the deficit through higher taxes in the late 1970s. And Ronald Reagan
made tax cuts the down payment on every election since. George W.
Bush, of course, imitated Reagan in cutting taxes, thereby creating
huge new budget deficits. Voters are still willing to permit the
government to expand its share of GDP, particularly in the face of
national crises — and we are certainly in the middle of one. Tax
revenues jumped from just 5% of GDP in 1936 to 15% to 20% during and
after World War II, creating our modern tax system. At the end of the
war, the level of federal taxation averaged around 18% of GDP, a rate
that has remained nearly constant ever since.
What has changed is the way we spend that 18%. In the 1950s, during
the Korean War and at the height of the Cold War, about 10% of GDP was
devoted to defense. Over time, that share of spending on defense
declined, making room for proportionally more spending on things like
health care, education and infrastructure. By the late 1970s, as
defense spending declined to 4% to 5% of GDP, there wasn't a lot more
room to squeeze defense for higher domestic spending. Even with the
end of our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's most unlikely
that we'd save as much as 2% of GDP, given the vocal demands for
increases in military budgets.
As our budget choices were getting tougher in the 1970s, Europe faced
similar dilemmas and took a different course. While Americans rejected
new taxes and new domestic programs, Europeans elected governments
that introduced higher taxation, mainly value-added taxes, to cover
the rising costs of health care, education, infrastructure, poverty
relief and international-development aid. Ultimately, the Europeans
restrained excessive growth in the welfare state in order to maintain
global competitiveness and rebalance their economies and succeeded in
sustaining the public-private partnerships and welfare-state
benefits.
The European strategy, with levels of taxation and government spending
roughly 8% to 10% of GDP higher than in the U.S., has many successes
to show for it: less costly and more reliable health care, the
elimination of hard-core poverty, solid educational achievements, and
social services that ensure better care for children and more
flexibility for mothers and the elderly. The U.S. will not mimic
Europe for many reasons — size, diversity, tradition and, of course,
vested interests — but we can learn from Europe. Most important, we
can see how government can be a partner of the private sector, not an
enemy. (Read "Merkel's Caution on Economy Draws Fire".)
The time has arrived to restore national prosperity and security with
a smartly rebalanced partnership between the public and private
sectors. Fiscal policy will be President Obama's biggest political
hurdle. Expanded spending by government — for health care, climate
change, energy security, education, infrastructure and peaceful
diplomacy — is urgently needed, but large deficit financing is not a
long-term option. Although Obama's tax cuts might stimulate consumer
spending — and placate Republicans — any permanent cut would be a huge
error, and even short-term tax cuts are an unnecessary risk. Obama's
long-term success will depend on his ability to lead Americans to a
new, even revolutionary consensus that the U.S. government can offer
value for money.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1870268,00.html
Martin Johansen
> Det er bare absurd når Hagen og FrP kan få seg til å hevde at
> finanskrisen oppsto pga. for MYE regulering. Alle skjønner etter hvert
> at det er tull.
Gå heller inn på lenken nedenfor
http://www.civita.no/civita-notatet
og last ned notat 13 2008.
Så vil dere muligens få et annet syn på den saken. Veldig klargjørende hvordan
myndighetene gjennom utallige reguleringen har nærmest tvunget bankene til å gi
lån til personer som ikke var kredittverdig (subprime).
Disse lånene ble så kjøpt opp og "verdipapirisert" av Fannie Mae og Freddie Mac
etter oppfordring fra myndighetene.
Les notatet og galskapen i reguleringen og påbudene vil bli klar for de fleste.
Totalt 31 sider, siste 7 sider er referanser.
mj
--
Roald B. Larsen
> Roald B. Larsen skrev:> Det er bare absurd når Hagen og FrP kan få seg til å hevde at
> > finanskrisen oppsto pga. for MYE regulering. Alle skjønner etter hvert
> > at det er tull.
>
> kuttet resten av babbelet.
Dette viser at du selv bare farer med babbel, som ikke kan interesse
meg.
Martin Johansen
Det er ingen bombe at du som mener planøkonomi er best, har stor og
vedvarende vegring mot nyttig kunnskap.
mj
--