Skip to main content

Biden Successes

 The Economist magazine reported on the successes of the Biden administration during the last year and the moderation of American voters in the 2022 election.  The article said:

It mustered a bipartisan majority to pass the chips and Science Act, a $280bn effort to shore up America’s microchips industry, thanks to growing wariness of China. After unsuccessfully pushing a grand economic redesign of America, the administration eventually compromised enough to overcome the resistance of Joe Manchin of West Virginia, often the swing Democrat in a 50-50 Senate, to pass a more modest, inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act, promising spending of $369bn over a decade. Its climate spending will be the most substantial in American history (in a year when disasters from drought in the West to Hurricane Ian in the East, to a nationwide winter storm at Christmas, served as a reminder of climate perils). Together with an infrastructure package passed in November 2021, the trio of bills will make for annual spending of nearly $100bn on industrial policy, by one reckoning. America could end up spending more, as a share of gdp, on industrial policy than unabashed champions of the practice such as France, Germany and Japan. They and other allies are already starting to fret about the protectionism that Bidenomics could bring about.

Crucially, too, America maintained a bipartisan consensus in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. In the build-up to Mr Putin’s attack the administration made bold and unusually public use of intelligence to flag his plans, deploying the truth against Russian disinformation. Republicans quickly returned to their senses on Russia, shunning the right’s Putin fandom. Despite some misgivings, and ongoing warnings that with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives there will be no “blank cheque”, Congress has approved large dollops–roughly $100bn so far–of aid for Ukraine.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Founding Fathers Reared Pure Democracy

  The Founding Fathers were not enthusiastic about pure democracy.  In his excellent book, The Quartet, historian Joseph Ellis describes James Madison’s views on a democracy that represented the direct choices of “the people.”   “Madison’s experience at both the state and the federal level had convinced him that “the people” was not some benevolent, harmonious collective but rather a smoldering and ever-shifting gathering of factions or interest groups committed to provincial perspectives and vulnerable to demagogues with partisan agendas. The question, then, was how to reconcile the creedal conviction about popular sovereignty with the highly combustible, inherently swoonish character of democracy. Perhaps the most succinct way to put the question was this: How could a republic bottomed on the principle of popular sovereignty be structured in such a way to manage the inevitable excesses of democracy and best serve the long-term public interest?   “Madison’s one-word...

UK Energy Prices

  An op-ed in the   Financial Times by Martin Wolf   calls for strong action by the UK government to prevent the increasingly high energy prices from falling disproportionately on the poor.  He says: It would be a crime and a folly to let the domestic costs of the war fall disproportionately on the least well off. Solidarity in sharing these burdens is obligatory. So, too, is willingness to shed shibboleths. In wartime, markets are not sacrosanct. Price controls, even rationing, must be on the table. So, while imported gas is a big tail, there is no reason at all why it should wag the energy dog. As an emergency measure, the government can and should impose price controls on domestic gas producers and generators of nuclear and renewable electricity. These prices should be substantially higher than prewar, but not at today’s “Putin levels”. The government should also subsidise the price of gas imports to these controlled levels. These controls (and subsidies) should e...