Just how good is the economics in Bidenomics? US President Joe Biden’s administration is in full PR mode, crisscrossing the country to promote the president’s economic policies. These include the Infrastructure Act of 2021, the Chips and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, all of which provide incentives for companies to invest in physical infrastructure. It would take years to gauge their impact on the economy.
A simple comparison between the slow recovery from the financial crisis during the administration of former US president Barack Obama and the rapid one under Biden clearly suggests that the latter’s approach of prioritizing people — the child tax credit in 2021, the stimulus checks and the added unemployment benefits — has paid off in terms of juicing growth.
However, instead of asking whether the policies are paying dividends right now, let us ask whether they strike the right balance between efficiency and resilience.
For decades, efficiency, which means producing the greatest output at the lowest cost, was the key criterion economists considered when advising policymakers. Efficiency-minded economists emphasized the importance of expanding international trade, which brought the US cheaper consumer goods. The COVID-19 era, though, has shown that efficiency comes at a cost in the form of an economy that can be slow to adjust to unforeseen crises.
Resilience, in contrast, aims to create systems that can help the economy recover quickly if a crisis hits. One example is unemployment insurance. When it works well, it helps maintain spending when many people lose their jobs and earnings fall, especially in a recession. That helps people make ends meet and prevents further unemployment, helping buffer the next recession. Although unemployment insurance makes the economy more resilient, it comes with an efficiency cost, including hiring during a labor shortage that adds to employers’ costs.
The Chips Act offers a chance to see the two sides duke it out. It aims to promote domestic production of computer chips so that we are not stuck with crippling shortages of these vital goods when trade is disrupted, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Avoiding those shortages has obvious benefits, but subsidizing domestic production goes against the usual efficiency paradigm of having goods produced wherever it is cheapest.
Unsurprisingly, efficiency economists are critical of the program, particularly the subsidies to chip manufacturers. They estimate that just with the Chips Act alone, tens of billions of dollars are to go to companies that may already have planned to expand. With a labor shortage, the requirement to push for diversified employment might be difficult for companies to achieve and cause inflation.
In short, the efficiency economist would not like attaching “strings” to the subsidies.
However, economists are generally slow to learn that “just in case” (resilience) as opposed “just in time” (efficiency) should also be a focus of government fiscal policy, said Markus Brunnermeier, an economics professor at Princeton University who wrote the book Resilient Society.
“We must prioritize resilience, which turns redundancies into a virtue,” Brunnermeier wrote.
Bidenomics is heavy on resiliencies.
It is not an either/or debate. Neither efficiency nor resiliency should always be the goal, and balanced thinking is beneficial in bolstering the economy ahead of the next recession. Yes, building resilience in the economy involves a cost, but the hardship from our lack of resilience — broken supply chains, a severe semiconductor shortage, a labor shortage — itself imposes a heavy cost that cannot be ignored, as we have just learned.
Here is how White House National Economic Council director and former Federal Reserve governor Lael Brainard recently put it: “Most recently, the waves of the global [COVID-19] pandemic followed by Russia’s war on Ukraine revealed fragilities in the supply side of our economy that contributed to severe shortages and a surge in inflation. Our economy faced acute constraints on shipping and on the supply of non-substitutable intermediate inputs like semiconductors. This experience highlights the importance of investing in the supply side of our economy to make it more resilient. Efficiency resource use remains an important goal, but we now know that resilience is also needed to prevent and mitigate damaging supply-side breakdowns.”
Physical investment is critical, but so is investment in people. When economic policy shoots for both resilience and efficiency, that is when everyone benefits.
Claudia Sahm is the founder of Sahm Consulting and a former US Federal Reserve economist. She is the creator of the recession indicator Sahm rule. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the