- Links for 02-12-15
- 'The Long-Term Impact of Inequality on Entrepreneurship and Job Creation'
- 'Back to the Nineteenth Century'
- 'The Disability Insurance Non-Crisis'
- 'A Fed Insider Calls for Reform'
- Erskine Bowles is Back
Posted: 12 Feb 2015 12:06 AM PST
Posted: 11 Feb 2015 11:21 AM PST
Via Chris Dillow, a new paper on inequality and economic growth:
The Long-Term Impact of Inequality on Entrepreneurship and Job Creation, by Roxana Gutiérrez-Romero and Luciana Méndez-Errico: Abstract We assess the extent to which historical levels of inequality affect the likelihood of businesses being created, surviving and of these cr eating jobs overtime. To this end, we build a pseudo-panel of entrepreneurs across 48 countries using the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Survey over 2001-2009. We complement this pseudo-panel with historical data of income distribution and indicators of current business regulation. We find that in countries with higher levels of inequality in the 1700s and 1800s, businesses today are more likely to die young and create fewer jobs. Our evidence supports economic theories that argue initial wealth distribution influences countries' development path, having therefore important policy implications for wealth redistribution.
Chris argues through a series of examples that such long-term effects are reasonable (things in the 1700s and 1800s mattering today), and then concludes with:
... All this suggests that, contrary to simple-minded neoclassical economics and Randian libertarianism, individuals are not and cannot be self-made men. We are instead creations of history. History is not simply a list of the misdeeds of irrelevant has-beens; it is a story of how we were made. Burke was right: society is "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born."
One radical implication of all this is Herbert Simon's:
When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.
I find myself skeptical of such long-term effects, but maybe...
Posted: 11 Feb 2015 11:01 AM PST
A small part of a much longer essay from Robert Reich:
... A Forbes Magazine contributor ... writes that jobs exist only "when both employer and employee are happy with the deal being made." So if the new jobs are low-paying and irregular, too bad.
Much the same argument was voiced in the late nineteenth century over alleged "freedom of contract." Any deal between employees and workers was assumed to be fine if both sides voluntarily agreed to it.
It was an era when many workers were "happy" to toil twelve-hour days in sweat shops for lack of any better alternative.
It was also a time of great wealth for a few and squalor for many. And of corruption, as the lackeys of robber barons deposited sacks of cash on the desks of pliant legislators.
Finally, after decades of labor strife and political tumult, the twentieth century brought an understanding that capitalism requires minimum standards of decency and fairness – workplace safety, a minimum wage, maximum hours (and time-and-a-half for overtime), and a ban on child labor.
We also learned that capitalism needs a fair balance of power between big corporations and workers.
We achieved that through antitrust laws that reduced the capacity of giant corporations to impose their will, and labor laws that allowed workers to organize and bargain collectively.
By the 1950s, when 35 percent of private-sector workers belonged to a labor union, they were able to negotiate higher wages and better working conditions than employers would otherwise have been "happy" to provide.
But now we seem to be heading back to nineteenth century. ...
Posted: 11 Feb 2015 11:01 AM PST
Republicans and misguided centrist Democrats are coming after Social Security. One target is disability insurance. However:
The Disability Insurance Non-Crisis, CBPP: Although the Senate Budget Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow titled "The Coming Crisis: Social Security Disability Trust Fund Insolvency," Disability Insurance (DI) is not, in fact, in crisis.
Here, briefly, are the facts...
Posted: 11 Feb 2015 09:49 AM PST
Hmm. I must be missing something, for once I don't strongly disagree with Richard Fisher:
A Fed Insider Calls for Reform, by James Freeman, WSJ: Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, believes "there's too much power concentrated in the New York Fed." And that goes as well for the Fed's Washington headquarters. ... It's ... an effort to head off Congressional efforts that Mr. Fisher believes could threaten the independence of the central bank. ...
To reform the Fed while maintaining its independence, Mr. Fisher first proposes to end the long tradition of the New York Fed President serving as the vice chairman of the FOMC. ...
Mr. Fisher would further boost representation for those outside of Washington and New York. Today, the Washington-based Fed governors and the Chairman hold a total of seven votes on the FOMC. That would not change. But whereas today New York gets a permanent seat and the other 11 regional banks take turns sharing four remaining seats, the regional banks would hold six seats under the Fisher plan. New York would lose its permanent seat and instead take its turn in the rotation for one of the six regional seats. So the Fed governors and Chairman, selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would still have a majority on the FOMC, but power would be further dispersed outside of the Acela corridor. ...
And to address "the potential for regulatory capture," Mr. Fisher says that teams in charge of supervision of a "systemically important" bank should come from a district outside where the giant bank is based. ...
There is resistance to giving the regional banks more power (in part because of people like Fisher), but I think the Fed is viewed suspiciously by most. If we can make typical households believe the Fed is representing their interests, it would help. Not sure this proposal is the best way to do that, but I do feel that most people have the perception (as opposed to the reality) that the Fed has been captured by interests other than their own.
Posted: 11 Feb 2015 09:18 AM PST
Erskine Bowles writes a letter to the NY Times:
The Risks of Delaying Fiscal Reforms: To the Editor:
Paul Krugman's Feb. 2 column, "The Long-Run Cop-Out," claims that we don't need to deal with our long-term fiscal challenges any time soon, and that those who argue otherwise are lazy and lacking in courage. His message is a disservice to the critically important debate about our nation's economic future. ...
Mr. Krugman's assertion that America followed a course of austerity while the economy was still in a deep slump due to the influence of "Bowles-Simpsonism" ignores the fact that one of the key principles set out in the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform report was that deficit reduction must not disrupt the fragile economic recovery.
Indeed, it is largely due to the failure of our elected leaders to reach agreement on long-term deficit reduction along the lines of our recommendations that we ended up with the mindless austerity of sequestration. In our report we recommended delaying significant budget cuts until the economy recovered, and implementing reforms gradually. ...
Does anyone remember Bowles or his associates objecting strenuously to the sequester, getting out in public forums and arguing it was a big mistake? Writing letters and op-eds to the NY Times, that sort of thing? I don't (and see Dean Baker below on this point - Update: from a Tweet by @BowlesSimpson, see here, but I don't see them calling for delay until the economy recovers, only for a different type of austerity, e.g. "simply waiving this sequester — or coming up with some agreement to spend partway between pre- and post-sequester levels — would represent a huge failure. It would send a message to creditors and citizens alike that Washington is not serious about the national debt and that even when lawmakers put in place mechanisms to force seriousness, they will simply vote later to evade them. Deal with the deficit President Barack Obama and Congress have a responsibility to put politics aside and work quickly to replace sequestration and put our fiscal house in order with targeted cuts and real reforms in both the entitlement programs and the tax code.").
As for the budget projections, I'm old enough to remember a time not so long ago when the main worry was what to do about the budget surplus that would begin accumulating (e.g. how could the Fed conduct monetary policy if the supply of T-Bills dried up?). We have no idea what the budget will look like 10 or 15 years from now (unless you have suddenly started to believe that economists have the ability to make accurate forecasts even a year ahead, let alone a decade or more). That's why Krugman said:
It's true that many projections suggest that our major social insurance programs will face financial difficulties in the future (although the dramatic slowing of increases in health costs makes even that proposition uncertain). If so, at some point we may need to cut benefits. But why, exactly, is it crucial that we deal with the threat of future benefits cuts by locking in plans to cut future benefits?
Dean Baker also responds:
Erskine Bowles Is Back and Still Pushing Austerity: Erskine Bowles, the superhero of the fiscal austerity crowd, took time off from his duties on corporate boards to once again argue the need to "put our fiscal house in order." He apparently hasn't been following the numbers lately. If he had, he would have noticed that growth rate of Medicare and other government health care programs is now on a path that is lower than the proposals that he and Alan Simpson put forward in their report. (He refers to their report as a report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. This is not true. According to its bylaws a report would have needed the support of 14 of the 18 members of the commission. The Bowles-Simpson proposal only had support of 10 members of the commission.)
Bowles also inaccurately claims they proposed delaying deficit reduction until after the economy had recovered. In fact, the report proposed deficit reduction of $330 billion (2.0 percent of GDP) beginning in the fall of 2011. This was long before the economy had recovered or would have in any scenario without a large dose of fiscal stimulus.
Bowles also fails to give any reason whatsoever why the country would benefit from dealing with large projected deficits a decade into the future. These projections may themselves be far off the mark, as has frequently been the case in the past. It is also worth noting that the rise in the deficit depends on projections of sharply higher interest rates in the years after 2020. There is no obvious basis for assuming this would be the case.
In the event that large deficits do prove to be a problem in 2025 and beyond there is no obvious reason why we would think that the Congress and president would not be able to deal with them at the time. That is what experience would suggest. In the mean time, we have real problems like millions of people unable to find jobs and tens of millions who have not shared in the benefits of growth for the last fifteen years. Or, to put it in generational terms, we have tens of millions of children growing up in families whose parents don't earn enough to provide them with a comfortable upbringing.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Economist's View |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States|