Hvis vi opdagede, at rumvæsener planlagde et angreb, og vi havde brug for massiv oprustning for at imødegå truslen, og inflation og underskud trådte i baggrunden, så ville denne lavkonjunktur være ovre i løbet af 18 måneder.

Her er indslaget fra CNN:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhMAV9VLvHA[/youtube]

Jeg foreslår en alternativ teori i min kommentar:

Hvis alle keynesianere fløj til det ydre rum, ville denne lavkonjunktur være ovre i løbet af 18 måneder.

Bortset fra en lille stigning i perioden 2005-2006 har den voldelige kriminalitet i USA nu været faldende siden 1991. Man skal tilbage til 1964 for at finde et lavere drabstal pr. indbygger, end vi har i dag.

Tallene understreger, at økonomi og kriminalitet ikke nødvendigvis hænger sammen. Andre forhold – såsom politiet, retssystemet, fængselsvæsenet og en række faktorer, som man kunne samle under rubrikken ”sammenhængskraft” – spiller også ind, men der er ingen klar konsensus blandt eksperterne.

En af de mere holdbare teorier om kriminalitet er den såkaldte ”broken windows”-teori, som blev fremsat af James Q. Wilson og George Kelling i 1982. Kort fortalt går teorien ud på, at smadrede ruder, graffiti, affald og andre synlige tegn på forfald kan sende et kvarter ud på en glidebane med stigende småkriminalitet efterfulgt af mere alvorlig kriminalitet.

Politiet i New York City støttede sig til ”broken windows”-teorien, da de i 90’erne lancerede en ”zero tolerance”-politik over for småkriminalitet. Mellem 1990 og 2000 faldt drabstallet i New York City fra 30,7 pr. 100.000 indbyggere til 8,4 pr. 100.000 indbyggere.

I 2008 udførte forskere i Holland et eksperiment, som yderligere underbyggede ”broken windows”-teorien.

I anledning af sidste års faldende kriminalitetstal havde James Q. Wilson et indlæg i Los Angeles Times, hvor han bl.a. roste politiet i New York City og Los Angeles for deres indsats. En af mændene bag New Yorks succes i 90’erne, William J. Bratton, blev chef for politiet i Los Angeles i 2002. Drabstallet i Los Angeles faldt fra 17,1 til 8,1 pr. 100.000 indbyggere i perioden 2002-2009.

Den magtfulde amerikanske tv-station Fox News er i årevis blevet beskyldt for at være fuld af løgnagtige og alt for skarpt vinklede nyheder.

Den republikaner-venlige og højreorienterede nyhedsstation bliver også beskyldt for åbenlys propaganda, og noget tyder på, at der er hold i begge påstande.

Det viser en ny undersøgelse, som er foretaget af forskere på University of Maryland.

Undersøgelsen viser, at jo mere Fox News man ser, jo mere misinformeret er man om samfundsforholdene i USA og resten af verden.

Det er fuldt forståeligt, at en seriøs og objektiv avis som Ekstra Bladet udtrykker sin bekymring over ”løgnagtige og alt for skarpt vinklede nyheder”, men efter et nærmere kig på Ekstra Bladets dokumentation kan jeg berolige denne blogs læsere: Fox News gør ikke amerikanerne dummere. Snarere tværtimod.

Et nærliggende spørgsmål er derimod, om Ekstra Bladet gør danskerne dummere. Døm selv – og se så i øvrigt dette TV-indslag, som viser, at Fox News havde de mest nøjagtige prognoser og den mest afbalancerede dækning af præsidentvalget i 2008:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1se-BijzLks[/youtube]

Strobe Talbott i Washington Post:

The obituaries are filled with words not always associated with eulogies: brash, aggressive, unyielding, exhausting. But put those together with effective, pragmatic, purpose-driven, indefatigable and idealistic, and they’re redolent of our national character. Not the Ugly American, and certainly not the Quiet American, but the Can-Do, Must-Do, Get-the-Hell-Out-of-My-Way American.

Fouad Ajami i Wall Street Journal:

American patriotism and American liberalism were still tethered together as Holbrooke made his way. There may have been hubris in that outlook. Our country would be bloodied in distant places, it would learn that the world wouldn’t always bend to our will. But the lodestar remained that essential belief that American power could be a force for the good in the world beyond our shores.

Ahmed Rashid i New York Daily News:

No American has tried as hard to ease the fears, apprehensions, doubts, conspiracy theories and ill-informed views of Pakistanis toward the U.S. as has Richard Holbrooke. His death is a tragedy for American diplomacy – but much more so for Pakistan, because whether you liked him or disliked him, there is no denying that in the last two years, he constantly battled for Pakistan.

The image of Holbrooke wading through floodwater, distributing relief goods to this year’s 20 million flood victims – not once but repeatedly at the ripe age of 69 – is an indelible one, that our own much younger leaders barely ever replicated. He pushed for U.S. helicopters to be deployed in Pakistan for the flood victims. He pushed for more aid money for Pakistan from a reluctant Congress.

Leder i Wall Street Journal:

Military force, as he saw it, was often the indispensable ally of diplomacy, not merely its alternative. That’s a lesson Holbrooke took to his final assignment in Pakistan and Afghanistan as a proponent of President Obama’s surge. In August, he wrote us personally about the task ahead. His counsel is worth sharing: ’We face an extraordinary challenge – and our greatest enemy is time. Americans are by nature impatient and driven by election cycles and screaming cable guys; Afghans see time differently and everything moves more slowly than we expect. If [the mission] is as important as we say it is, we must give it time.’

Holbrooke’s energy and intellect made him America’s best-known diplomat, but we’ll remember him in particular as a diplomat who never doubted America as a force for good in the world.

Foreign Affairs har samlet nogle af Richard Holbrookes bedste artikler gennem årene her.

Ære være Richard Holbrookes minde.

As the one-hundredth anniversary of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act approaches, we assess whether the nation‘s experiment with the Federal Reserve has been a success or a failure. Drawing on a wide range of recent empirical research, we find the following: (1) The Fed‘s full history (1914 to present) has been characterized by more rather than fewer symptoms of monetary and macroeconomic instability than the decades leading to the Fed‘s establishment. (2) While the Fed‘s performance has undoubtedly improved since World War II, even its postwar performance has not clearly surpassed that of its undoubtedly flawed predecessor, the National Banking system, before World War I. (3) Some proposed alternative arrangements might plausibly do better than the Fed as presently constituted. We conclude that the need for a systematic exploration of alternatives to the established monetary system is as pressing today as it was a century ago.

I dag har John Cogan fra Hoover Institution og John Taylor fra Stanford et tankevækkende indlæg i Wall Street Journal, hvor de konkluderer, at Obama-administrationens store stimulanspakke på 862 milliarder dollar fra 2009 ikke har ført til øget økonomisk aktivitet:

The bottom-line is the federal government borrowed funds from the public, transferred these funds to state and local governments, who then used the funds mainly to reduce borrowing from the public. The net impact on aggregate economic activity is zero, regardless of the magnitude of the government purchases multiplier.

• 1921-1928: Den øverste marginalskat blev sænket fra 73% til 25%. Skatteindtægterne fra de rigeste 1% steg fra 0,6% af BNP til 1,1% af BNP.
• 1928-1940: Den øverste marginalskat steg fra 25% til 83%. Skatteindtægterne fra de rigeste 1% faldt fra 1,1% af BNP til 1,0% af BNP.
• 1960-1968: Den øverste marginalskat blev sænket fra 91% til 70%. Skatteindtægterne fra de rigeste 1% steg fra 1,3% af BNP til 1,9% af BNP.
• 1968-1981: Johnson, Nixon, Ford og Carter hævede skatterne. (Den øverste marginalskat var 70% hele perioden, men grundet den høje inflation blev flere indtægter ramt af denne skatteprocent). Skatteindtægterne fra de rigeste 1% faldt fra 1,9% af BNP til 1,5% af BNP.
• 1981-2007: Den øverste marginalskat blev sænket til 35%. Skatteindtægterne fra de rigeste 1% steg fra 1,5% af BNP til 3,3% af BNP. I samme periode faldt skatteindtægterne fra de 95% ”fattigste” fra 5,4% af BNP til 3,2% – altså mindre end hvad de 1% rigeste bidrog med.

Laffer indleder sin artikel med et citat fra John F. Kennedy, som nok burde inspirere i disse økonomiske krisetider:

Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

Om sundhedsreformen:

Here in the United States, we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only 12% of total health-care spending. In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that.

Om midtvejsvalget i november:

One of the points Secretary Paulson made earlier today was how outraged – how unexpectedly outraged – the American people became when the government bailed out the banks. This belief in individual responsibility – the belief that people ought to make their own decisions, but should then bear the consequences of those decisions – this remains very powerful. The American people don’t want an expansion of government. They want more of what Reagan provided. They want limited government and economic growth. I expect them to say so in the elections this November.

Om Milton Friedman og nutidens økonomer:

When Milton was starting out, people really believed a state-run economy was the most efficient way of promoting growth. Today nobody believes that except maybe in North Korea. You go to China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, even Western Europe. Most of the economists under 50 have a free-market orientation. Now, there are differences of emphasis and opinion among them. But they’re oriented toward the markets. That’s a very important intellectual victory.

Om fremtiden:

When I think of my children and grandchildren, yes, they’ll have to fight. Liberty can’t be had on the cheap. But it’s not a hopeless fight by any means. I remain basically an optimist.

Læs hele interviewet her.

The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice. As the economy started shedding jobs in 2008, criminologists and pundits predicted that crime would shoot up, since poverty, as the “root causes” theory holds, begets criminals. Instead, the opposite happened. Over seven million lost jobs later, crime has plummeted to its lowest level since the early 1960s. The consequences of this drop for how we think about social order are significant.

If crime was a rational response to income inequality, the thinking went, government can best fight it through social services and wealth redistribution, not through arrests and incarceration. Even law enforcement officials came to embrace the root causes theory, which let them off the hook for rising lawlessness. Through the late 1980s, the FBI’s annual national crime report included the disclaimer that “criminal homicide is largely a societal problem which is beyond the control of the police.” Policing, it was understood, can only respond to crime after the fact; preventing it is the domain of government welfare programs.

The recession could still affect crime rates if cities cut their police forces and states start releasing prisoners early. Both forms of cost-saving would be self-defeating. Public safety is the precondition for thriving urban life. In 1990s New York, crime did not drop because the economy improved; rather, the city’s economy revived because crime was cut in half. Keeping crime rates low now is the best guarantee that cities across the country will be able to exploit the inevitable economic recovery when it comes.

Bernanke fik som bekendt øgenavnet ”Helicopter Ben”, da han i 2002 holdt to taler, hvor han med henvisning til Milton Friedmans berømte helikopter-eksempel understregede, at man altid kan udrydde deflation ved at trykke flere penge. Talerne kan læses her og her. Bernanke hyldede Friedman og Anna Schwartz for deres studie af depressionen i 30’erne, som konkluderede, at den amerikanske centralbank forårsagede depressionen gennem en alt for hård pengepolitik efter krakket i 1929.

Monetarister og tilhængere af den østrigske skole har længe debatteret årsagerne til depressionen i 30’erne og opskriften til den perfekte pengepolitik. Mark Skousen foreslår et interessant kompromis i bogen Vienna and Chicago: Friends or Foes?:

In conclusion, was there an inflationary imbalance during the 1920s, sufficient to cause an economic crisis? The evidence is mixed, but on net balance, the Austrians have a case that the low-interest rate policies of the Fed were sufficient to create distortions in the ”higher-order” sectors of the economy, and therefore a recession at minimum was necessary to correct these imbalances. But was Fed policy sufficiently easy to create a Great Depression following the 1929 stock market crash? Here the monetarists have the upper hand: only further deflationary blunders by the Federal Reserve could have turned the 1929-30 recession into the worst economic crisis of the 20th century.

Men uanset om man er monetarist eller østriger, så er John McCains skepsis over for Bernanke formentlig på sin plads. Selv Milton Friedman ville formentlig være betænkelig over den enorme udvidelse af pengemængden, som har fundet sted gennem det seneste års tid. Således påpegede Peter Bernholz tirsdag følgende i magasinet The American:

In a mistaken fear of deflation, the Fed lowered its interest rate to 1 percent and increased the monetary base by about 39 percent from 2000 to 2006 after the bursting of the New Economy Bubble. In doing so it encouraged an incredible credit expansion by the financial sector and thus allowed the subsequent asset bubble.

På den baggrund burde følgende give anledning til en vis bekymring:

The monetary base of the Fed has grown by about 99 percent within one year from the end of July 2008; and this following a substantial increase already since the end of 2008. Even the Swiss National Bank increased its monetary base by 112.5 percent from the end of 2008 to the end of May of 2009. The growth of the monetary base in the euro zone looks more modest, with 68 percent since the end of 2007. But even this smaller increase has never been experienced in monetary history except in countries suffering from high inflation.

USA kanøfles, fordi landet aldrig ratificerede Kyoto-protokollen, som 190 lande nu har tilsluttet sig. Efter orkanen Katrina i 2005 antydede den daværende tyske miljøminister Jürgen Trittin sågar, at George W. Bush selv var ude om katastrofen, fordi han ikke havde gjort nok for at begrænse amerikanernes udledning af drivhusgasser.

Ifølge U.S. Energy Information Administration steg det amerikanske CO2-udslip imidlertid kun med 2,3 procent under Bush (forskellen mellem 2000 og 2007 idet tal for 2008 endnu ikke er tilgængelige) sammenlignet med 4,4 procent i Danmark og 3,1 procent i EU. I samme periode faldt udslippet pr. person med 4,1 procent i USA, mens det faldt med 1,5 procent i Storbritannien, 2,9 procent i Tyskland og 3,3 procent i Frankrig.

Gennem det seneste årti har USA altså mindsket sit CO2-udslip mere end Europa – uden at tilslutte sig Kyoto-protokollen og uden at ødelægge den økonomiske vækst med uforudsigelige og bureaukratiske miljøregler (relativt set). Således voksede den amerikanske økonomi med 2,4 procent årligt i perioden 2000-2007 sammenlignet med 2,3 procent i EU og 2,0 procent i Vesteuropa (EU-15).

Jeg skrev i øvrigt tidligere på året en klumme i Berlingske Tidende, hvor jeg kritiserede forhenværende statsminister Poul Nyrup Rasmussens angreb på den anglo-amerikanske kapitalisme.