Pity the man who wins this election Given the state of the economy, it would be better for Kerry if he lost
Larry Elliott Friday July 30, 2004 The Guardian The candidate has been anointed and he has accepted the challenge. America is now supposed to have an idea of what makes John Kerry tick and, in November, we shall see whether he has what it takes to do what Bill Clinton did and defeat an incumbent Bush. If defining Kerry has dominated events in Boston this week, a more interesting question is whether this is an election worth winning. For those who believe any price is worth paying to get rid of Bush, the answer, of course, is a resounding yes. Yet one look at the state of the world's biggest economy suggests that this may be a good election for the Democrats to lose. The next four years could be tough for the US - very tough indeed - and it would be fitting if Bush were left to clear up the almighty mess he has created. There is a precedent. [here was a digression on an historical analogy concerning the political-economic history of Airstrip One, Oceania's informal 51st state. ;-)] Clearly, the US economy in 2004 is not [Airstrip One] in 1992. America is not in recession, and unemployment is falling rather than rising. The dollar is not pegged against other currencies, so there is no fixed target for the speculators to aim at. Moreover, if you believe Bush, the economy is just dandy after four blissful years of Republican stewardship. This, though, is a bit like saying that a sprinter has just smashed the world record in the Olympics while failing to mention the cocktail of performance-enhancing drugs that has been ingested. What has happened to the US economy under Bush is pretty simple. In Bill Clinton's second term America had its own version of the South Sea bubble; share prices for worthless IT companies soared, making consumers believe they were richer than they actually were. When the bubble burst, policy makers merrily responded by creating another bubble, this time in the property market. Interest rates were cut so that consumers could carry on borrowing, while the government did its bit to keep the party swinging by irresponsibly cutting taxes (primarily for the rich). The result has been predictable. A trade deficit of 5% of GDP is evidence that the US has been living beyond its means. A similar budget deficit shows that the government, too, has been failing to match what it spends with its tax revenues. In any country south the Rio Grande, such a combination would mean that the IMF would be on the scene before you could say "structural adjustment". The dollar's role as a global reserve currency means that Washington can paper over the cracks for a while by selling government bonds to its creditors. But if the laws of economics can be bent, they cannot be broken. The only long-term solution to the twin deficits is a dose of the medicine swallowed by Britain after Black Wednesday. Cutting the trade gap means exports go up and imports come down. A cheaper dollar would help exports, but it would make imports dearer and threaten higher inflation. Higher taxes or lower spending are needed to curb consumer spending and close the budget deficit. This combination worked in the UK, but was mightily unpopular. Unless Bush or Kerry have a brilliant plan for a perpetual bubble economy, one of them is going to have to face reality. At the moment, the Democrats have only one thought: winning. But if they lose they will at least have the consolation of seeing Bush cleaning up his own vomit. * Larry Elliott is the Guardian's economics editor. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
