This is one of the finest books I have read in diagnosing our current economic, social, and political crisis, but it is even more important as it contains suggestions for changing our current dismal and deteriorating condition.
What follows are extensive excerpts from this book in Sachs’ own words, with the page(s) from which they are taken indicated in parenthesis. As Goodreads sets a maximum of 20,000 characters, some of my review was cut off.
• At the root of America’s economic crisis lies a moral crisis: the decline of civic virtue among America’s political and economic elite. A society of markets, laws and elections is not enough if the rich and powerful fail to behave with respect, honesty, and compassion toward the rest of society and toward the world. America has …squandered its civic virtue…. Without restoring an ethos of social responsibility, there can be no meaningful and sustained economic recovery. (3)
• The crisis…developed gradually over the course of several decades. We are not facing a short-term business cycle downturn, but the working out of long-term social, political, and economic trends. (4)
• We need to reconceive the idea of a good society in the early twenty-first century and to find a creative path toward it. Most important, we need to be ready to pay the price of civilization through multiple acts of good citizenship: bearing our fair share of taxes, educating ourselves deeply about society’s needs, acting as vigilant stewards for future generations, and remembering that compassion is the glue that holds society together. I would suggest that a majority of the public understands this challenge and accepts it. (5)
• When the U.S. economy hit the skids in the 1970s, the political Right, represented by Ronald Reagan, claimed that government was to blame for its growing ills. This diagnosis, although incorrect, had a plausible ring to it to enough Americans to enable the Reagan coalition to begin a process of dismantling effective government programs and undermining the government’s capacity to help steer the economy. (7)
• The two main political parties are not showing a way out of the crisis. Even with the fights between them are vicious…they actually hew to a fairly narrow range of policies, and not ones that are solving America’s problems. We are paralyzed, but not mainly by disagreements between the two parties… We are paralyzed, rather, by a shared lack of serious attention to our future. We increasingly drift between elections without serious resolution of a long list of deep problems, whether it’s the gargantuan budget deficit, wars, health care, education, energy policy, immigration reform, campaign finance reform, and much more. Each election is an occasion to promise to reverse whatever small steps the preceding government has taken. (11)
• …America began in the 1980s to forget the basic lessons of economics… One of the most basic and important ideas of economics – that business and government have complementary roles as part of a “mixed economy” – has been increasingly ignored…. (27)
• [He was a student of the economist Paul Samuelson.] Samuelson’s great synthesis called on market forces to allocate most good n the economy, while calling on governments to perform three essential tasks: redistributing income to protect the poor and the unlucky; providing public goods such as infrastructure and scientific research; and stabilizing the macroeconomy.(29)
• [The economic crises of the 1970s turned this understanding of economics on its head. A new school of economic thought, led by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek,] deemphasized the mixed economy and played up the functioning of the market system… [and] expressed greatly increased skepticism about the role of government in the economy… Reagan and Thatcher launched a rollback of government the likes of which had not been seen in decades. (30)
• The main effect of the Reagan Revolution, however, was not the specific policies but a new antipathy to the role of government, a new disdain for the poor who depended on government for income support, and a new invitation to the rich to shed their moral responsibilities to the rest of society. Reagan helped plant the notion that society could benefit most not by insisting on the civic virtue of the wealthy, but by cutting their tax rates and thereby unleashing their entrepreneurial zeal. Whether such…zeal was released is debatable, but there is little doubt that a lot of pent-up greed was released, greed that infected the political system and that still haunts America today. (30-31)
• Though efficiency is a great virtue, it is not the only economic goal of interest to the society. Economic fairness is also crucial. Fairness refers to the distribution of income and well-being, as well as to the ways that government treats the citizenry (including fairness in levying taxes, awarding contracts, and distributing transfers). (35)
• Fairness entails not only the distribution of income within society at a point of time but also the distribution of income across generations, a concept that economists also call “sustainability.” If the current generation depletes the earth’s scare natural resources, for example by using up its fossil fuel an freshwater aquifers…it severely diminishes the well-being of the generations to come… Sustainability, or fairness to the future, therefore involves the concept of stewardship, the idea that the living generation must be stewards of the earth’s resources for the generations that will come later. (36)
• …Scandinavian social democracies…believe that even extensive redistribution can and should be carried out by government and that such a redistribution can be accomplished with very little inefficiency…. Promoting fairness also promotes efficiency. …government-supported investment in “human capital” [is a specific] way for a poor household to raise its long-term productivity. Taxing the rich to hel the poor can then mean cutting lavish consumption spending by the rich to support high-return human investments by the poor. The outcome is not only fairer but also more efficient. (43)
• [What is the proper balance between markets and government?] Here are five of my own conclusions regarding this debate… First, in productive sectors of many producers and consumers, and therefore where strong market competition applies we should rely on market forces…. Second, we should turn to government to ensure the fairness and sustainability of market outcomes, including the broad distribution of income in the society… The government should therefore use its powers to tax and transfer incomes, on a prudent and targeted basis, to help those who can’t help themselves and to protect the well-being of future…generations. Third, we should recognize that the knowledge of science and technology is a public good that should be promoted actively by government alongside the private sector. Markets alone will not create the twenty-first-century knowledge society…. Fourth, as economic life becomes more complex, we should expect the role of government to become more extensive… We need fresh thinking about our circumstances, especially at a time of rapid globalization, environmental threats, and a knowledge-based economy. Fifth, we should appreciate that circumstances as to the appropriate role of markets and government differ across countries. (44-45)
• To recap…the market by itself is not equipped to achieve the triple bottom line of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. (46)
• During the 1980s and onward, the instruments of federal power were increasingly handed over to vested corporate interests to be used for private advantage. The new corporatocracy was under way… The overarching reversal of Washington’s role, from defender of the common man to the enabler of narrow interests, is the most important political change during the eight decades since the Great Depression in the 1930s. (48)
• After [Bill] Clinton, the United States no longer had a center-right Republican Party and a center-left Democratic Party, but rather two center-right parties whose heated differences on the surface mask a common agenda at the core. Washington’s obeisance to the rich while squeezing the poor has so far proved to be bipartisan and durable. (49)
• [Sachs calls the period form the 1940s into at least the middle of the 1960s the “Era of Consensus” when the public broadly supported the government’s programs and in which government] was widely trusted and seen as a guarantor of national prosperity. It was not seen as a tribune of special interest, and particularly not the interests of the rich, who paid stiff income taxes, with top tax rates soaring to 80 percent or higher after 1940. (52)
• One more crucial factor made possible the surge in social programs during the period of the 1960s: the availability of existing government revenues to pay for them… the federal tax system that emerged from World War II and the Korean War was able to collect 18 to 19 percent of GDP in revenues… (53)
• [Sachs calls the post ‘60s the “Great Reversal,” the government’s “retreat from public purpose.”] The deepest political impact of the Reagan era was the demonization of taxes. (57) [The consequent tax cuts] led to large budget deficits and to pressures to cut government spending on domestic discretionary programs, all the more because spending on the military rose. (58) [Consequent cuts occurred in spending on the infrastructure, as well as] education, job training, and employment programs, all vital areas of investment in human capital, especially in the context of globalization. (59-60)
• [Despite great hype then, and continuing into our own day,] the Reagan Revolution failed to put America back on its previous path of growth, high employment, and shared prosperity. (65)
• The retreat of government after 1980 partly reflected Reagan’s incorrect diagnosis that “big government” had caused the economic crisis of the 1970s. Another cause was globalization… A third factor was the rise of social tensions in America that made it more difficult to acknowledge, and act upon, shared principles and values. From the 1980s until now, America has seen itself as a tensely divided society, and we’ve dissipated tremendous national energies on our social divisions rather than focusing on the important values that unite most Americans that can and should be the basis of economic policies. (67)
• [Sachs identifies four trends] that I believe have also played a deep and lasting role [in social division] and are even more directly related to the changes in Washington: [ the civil rights movement, the rise in Hispanic immigration, the] perhaps deepest, change… the demographic and economic rise of the Sunbelt, which brought new regions and values to the forefront of American politics. Finally, the suburbanization of America, including the residential sorting of Americans by class, contributed to polarized politics. (68-69)
• The civil rights movement marked the moment in which political power shifted from the Snowbelt to the Sunbelt [and directly contributed to] the anti-government and anti-tax revolt that culminated in Regan’s election in 1980… Before the civil rights era, federal social spending was largely for white voters [farmers, home owners, and retirees]. With the success of the civil rights movement and the rise of anti-poverty programs in the 1960s, federal benefits increasingly flowed to minority communities. The political reaction was a sharp turn of many white voters away from government’s leadership role. (69-70)
• The surge in Hispanic immigration [following liberalizing immigration policy in the ‘60s] exacerbated racial tensions and put immigration policy back at the forefront of national politics, feeding directly and powerfully into the growing anti-tax sentiments of the 1970s and afterward. [Proposition 13 in California in 1978] was strongly influenced by the surge in the state’s Hispanic population and the opposition in much of the white community to the added property taxes being levied to provide schooling for an increasingly Hispanic student population. [Social programs that involve taxing white people to assist people of color make it especially hard to create, let alone maintain, a sense of shared purpose without which the solidarity of will to sustain such programs cannot be created.] (71-72)
• [The civil rights movement and the surge of non-white immigration] not only divided Americans according to race and ethnicity but also helped to change the geography of political power… Between 1900 and 1960, the Snowbelt states provided every U.S. president but one. But between 1964 and Obama’s election in 2008, the Sunbelt states provided every one! …The rise of the Sunbelt to president power…was far more than merely a civil rights backlash, however. It also reflected the gradual rise in economic power of the South after World War II [as many industries moved South away from the] highly unionized Northeast to the low-cost, nonunionized South. [This shift in the locus of economic power presaged the accompanying shift of political power from North to South. Also, this geographic] shift in industries [within the United States]…was, in many ways, a dry run of the later transfer of industry from the high-wage United States to the low-wage Asia. (73-74)
• The real issue about consensus is not whether Americans can agree on everything important to their lives – clearly the answer to that is no – but whether Americans can agree on a set of national economic policies to promote overall efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Here, then are some things on which Americans broadly agree… equality of opportunity for American citizens…that individuals should make the maximum effort to help themselves…that government should help those in real need, as long as they are trying to help themselves. And they broadly agree that the rich should pay more in taxes. These core values can form the basis of a broad and effective consensus on the basic direction of economic policy. (emphasis added) (79-80)
• The flip side of the view supporting public responsibility toward the poor is an equally strong consensus that big business has been allowed to run away with the prize… [Americans also continue to place] high importance [on caring for] the natural environment. (81)
• There would be also be many few disagreements if the electorate was helped to be better informed. [For example, the very states that tend to be most vocal in resisting government and government aid are the very states that are the net beneficiaries of tax and spending programs: the red Sunbelt states!] (82)
• Our politics feel divisive not because of a raging battle in middle America but because there is a vast gap between (1) what Americans believe; (2) what the mass media tells us Americans believe; and (3) what politicians actually decide, no matter what Americans believe… the media tend to emphasize and even promote the extremes. And the politicians vote along with the rich and the special interests. We thereby end up with a very biased view of our own country. American can be much better than it is today if public policies begin to follow American values, not the values that corporate-driven media pretend to be American values. [emphasis added] (84)
• Here’s the conundrum: A healthy economy is a mixed economy, in which government and the marketplace both play their role. Yet the federal government has neglected its role for three decades… it turned the levers of power over to the corporate lobbies… the politics of America’s corporatocracy, a political system in which powerful corporate interest groups dominate the policy agenda. (105)
• We can see how the corporatocracy arose as the confluence of four big trends. First, the American political system has weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts… allow[ing] special interest to have a great say in politics through local representatives. Second, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II created the first of the megalobbies, the military-industrial complex. Third, big corporate money finances America’s election campaigns. And fourth, globalization and the race to the bottom have tilted the balance of power toward corporations and away from workers. (105)
• We can consider America’s political system today to be not so much a true democracy as a stable duopoly of two ruling parties…which basically stand for many of the same things when it comes to issues touching the interest of business, the rich, and the military…(114)
• [There is a] fairly stable bipartisan consensus among politicians…on five major points of policy in the past thirty years… [1] low marginal tax rates for the rich… [2] contracting of public services to well-connected private interests; [3] neglect of the budget deficit when voting on tax and spending issues, leaving the debt to future generations; [4] the favoring of large military outlays even as domestic spending is squeezed; and [5] the lack of serious long-term budget planning. (1140
• The power of corporatocracy is supported not only by campaign financing and lobbying, but also by relentless public relations spin…[via] public relations firms and disinformation campaigns …[and] major corporate media outlets…. (129)
• Americans have allowed themselves to be manipulated by corporate propaganda. And Americans have behaved in a very shortsighted way with their own budget management, falling dangerously into debt and eventually into bankruptcy. (133)
• Though I can’t prove that America’s mass-media culture, ubiquitous advertising, and long hours of daily TV watching are the fundamental causes of its tendency to let markets run rampant over social values, I can show that America represents the unhappy extreme of commercialism among the leading economies…. [Using his ‘commercialization index,’ he concludes that] The United State is by far the most commercialized country in the sample [with the Scandinavian countries at the opposite end]. Highly commercialized societies like America are more likely to leave the poor behind. (147)
• …in the highly commercialized countries, market values trump social values: the poor, both those at home and abroad, are more or less forgotten. I would surmise that in such societies, individuals are so overwhelmed by market values (bargaining, self-interest, competitions) that they lose touch with other values (compassion, trust, honesty). Whatever the cause, the United States is privately rich but socially poor. (150)
• …America has become a media-saturated society, the first in history… We are a technology-rich, advertising-fed, knowledge-poor society. (157)
• Americans urgently need to regain our footing. The starting point is that we must recognize the snares that the economy has set for our own psyches. We must begin by reclaiming our balance as individuals, consumers, citizens, and members of society. (158)
• We need a mindful society, in which we once again take seriously our own well-being, our relations with others, and the operation of our politics. [Emphasis added.] The essential teaching of both Buddha and Aristotle is that the path of moderation is the key to fulfillment but is hard won and must be pursued through lifelong diligence, training, and reflection…