The retaliatory China currency bill passed in the U.S. House helps brand this Congress as one of the more protectionist in years. The next one might switch gears and embrace trade by passing several stalled pacts. But Beijing shouldn’t expect that to translate into a friendlier Washington.
Here is my Reuters Breakingviews piece from last week:
General Electric boss Jeffrey Immelt last Thursday castigated Washington for neglecting the U.S. energy industry, calling current policy “stupid.” Sure, Immelt was talking his own book — a third of GE’s profit last year came from its power unit. But the lack of a comprehensive energy strategy is still an economic drag.
Some interesting stuff in this piece by Michael Lind:
Instead of the updated Rooseveltonomics that America needs, Obama’s team offers warmed-over Rubinomics from the 1990s. Consider the priorities of the Obama administration: the environment, healthcare and education. Why these priorities, as opposed to others, like employment, high wages and manufacturing? The answer is that these three goals co-opt the activist left while fitting neatly into a neoliberal narrative that could as easily have been told in 1999 as in 2009. The story is this: New Dealers and Keynesians are wrong to think that industrial capitalism is permanently and inherently prone to self-destruction, if left to itself. Except in hundred-year disasters, the market economy is basically sound and self-correcting. Government can, however, help the market indirectly, by providing these three public goods, which, thanks to “market failures,” the private sector will not provide.
So who is going to replace Larry Summers over at the White House? My Reuters colleagues list a number of options. I have come up with a number of my own over at Twitter. (The WH would love a female CEO as director of the National Economic Council, methinks.) Anyway, here is my Reuters Breakingviews column on the the impending Summers exit: