To paraphrase Antony from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “I come not to praise Obama’s and the Democrats’ economic stewardship, but to bury it.” Besides failing on actual economic policy (robust job creation), Obama and most Democrats have not proposed any new large jobs program. This messaging failure, along with the lack of significant job growth over the last two years, doomed the Democrats in the midterms. However, I think there is a third factor that has hampered and will continue to thwart the formulation and implementation of any progressive economic agenda: the economic illiteracy of the American people. Without some means to educate the public, the media, and our elected leaders about progressive economic alternatives to our current economic crisis, conservative politicians with their message discipline will continue to sway an electorate that is woefully ignorant on economic matters with simplistic and illogical soundbites passing as policy solutions.
Now, I define economic literacy, for the sake of this blog, as understanding SOME of the tenants of basic economics. In other words, stuff you should have learned in at least high school or maybe even college. This does not mean that you or I should be able to hold forth on the complexities of economic theory with the likes of Paul Krugman, but I do think that a basic knowledge of economics should involve understanding the definition of economics – the study of scarcity and how people deal with scarcity of resources – and a few key concepts. NOTE: I am not an economist, but I did take micro and macroeconomics in college many years ago.
Sadly — no, tragically — most Americans don’t know a damn thing about economics. . . .
For starters, let’s look at some polls on what Americans supposedly know about economics. (Let’s put aside any quibbling over the accuracies of polls for the moment). First up is a poll with an economic quiz given by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis in 1998. Granted, the sample size was small (404 people), but your average American scored a 45% on the economic quiz (you can take the quiz and compare your score to the actual results).
You might be thinking, “Well, the sample size of that poll was small. Furthermore, over half the people taking the exam never had an economics course. Economic literacy must correlate with education. Requiring classes in economics in high school and college for graduation would fix the problem.” That is a logical conclusion, but, alas, the results are a resounding “NO.”
One study out of the University of Nebraksa demonstrated that college seniors who had taken economic classes, on average, scored a 41% on the economics section of the Major Field Test in Business (MFTB). The economics section of the MFTB asked basic economics questions, and the results were compiled from over 12,000 test takers. Additionally, college seniors with an economic background were also given a quiz by the Gallup organization, and the average score from the Gallup poll was a 62%; this score corresponds to a D-.
Not encouraging results for the state of economics education in the U.S.
The apparant economic illiteracy of Americans is not limited to the public at large. While members of Congress and the Obama Administration have not been subjected to Gallup poll economic quizzes (I suspect that the results of such a project would be like watching a car accident on a freeway – I just can’t take my eyes away!), the only way to judge a politicians or governmental officials economic acumen is with results. And on that score, both political parties come up wanting on economic policy.
I won’t go over the obvious failures of Republican economic policies (too damn lengthy for my taste). Instead, I will look at how the Democrats fumbled the ball on economic policy. Mainly, Obama, the Blue Dogs, and the conservadems in the Senate were timid and stingy when it came to the stimulus bill.
Under pressure from the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, Obama and the Democratic Congress took a progressive idea – deficit spending on a jobs bill to create demand during a recession – and tried to do it on the cheap. So called educated fools like Larry Summers whittled the stimulus bill down from a proposed 1.2 trillion dollars to around 800 billion dollars. Conservadems like Senator Ben Nelson went to town on the bill and bragged to Rachel Maddow that he helped cut the cost of the stimulus even further (Nebraska obviously didn’t need those bucks). To ”attract” non-existent Republican votes, Obama loaded the stimulus bill with tax cuts (40% of the final bill), even though tax cuts don’t provide the mulitplier effect that direct government spending does.
Obama and his economic team predicted that the stimulus bill would keep unemployment to around 8%. Too bad that didn’t happen! Actually, 8% unemployment would have looked good before the midterm election disaster. To make matters worse, Obama and the Democrats were left with the shitty message of “Well, it could have been worse without the stimulus bill.”
Want to know how well that message worked with the American public? Most Americans think that the stimulus did not work. In fact, a subset of this same poll found that 51% of Americans thought the stimulus was too big. Less stimulus leads to more economic growth! Welcome to the Ben Nelson School of Economics!
With Obama and the Democrats failing to offer any new progressive economic policies for job creation, the political field was left wide open for every conservative crank under the sun to offer up “solutions” for the weak economy. Here are just a few of those nifty conservative ideas for economic renewel:
- • We need private sector jobs because government jobs aren’t real jobs.
- • Unemployment compensation contributes to unemployment.
- • The wealthy create jobs; therefore, the wealthy need massive tax cuts to spur job creation.
- • Reducing the pay and cutting the federal workforce will help the economy.
- • We need to focus on deficit reduction during the midst of a deep recession.
Now, the last point is the one that REALLY pushes my buttons. Granted, all of the above ideas suck, but deficit reduction during a major recession? We tried that during the Great Depression, and the economy tanked.
But do you think that the conservative cranks have been called out on their lame brain economic prescriptions by the media? With the exception of some shows on MSNBC and some progressive economists like Paul Krugman, the nightly news programs have pushed the “deficit crisis” storyline. Translation: the major media outlets have bought into Republican talking points on the economy.
The local media has proven to be even worse in covering economic news and policies than the national outlets. I sat in shock and horror as one reporter after another in Kentucky bought into Republican framing on the economy during the 2010 U.S. Senate campaign here. During the so called Senate debates between Rand Paul and Jack Conway, I was continually assaulted with the local media’s economic illiteracy.
The Kentucky media was fixated on shrinking the federal deficit during a recession. The Kentucky media wanted to know specific budget cuts that either candidate would support. Conway talked about having Medicare negotiate drug prices which would save a nice chunk of change, but Conway accepted as a given the failed meme that deficit reduction during a recession is as good thing. Rand Paul, once again, just made shit up with regards to deficit reduction. Did you know that the average government employee makes $120,000 a year, according to Rand Paul? We need to bring these bloated salaries in line with the private sector, and BINGO! We are on the road to a balanced federal budget.
No follow up by the local reporters on that nifty Rand Paul lie. None. Nada.
I worked for the Census Bureau on and off for the last year. As an average government emplyee, the bastards still owe me about $93,000 dollars! I was ROBBED!
But I digress.
The economic illiteracy continued its unstoppable rampage during the Senate debate with another repoter’s question about the estate tax. The gist of the question to both candidates was this: Isn’t the scheduled increase in the estate tax rates (remember, those estate tax cuts weren’t permanent either) going to hurt family farmers in Kentucky? Are you for keeping the estate tax at the present rate?
Conway was for a two year extension of the present estate tax rates. Paul was for eliminating the estate tax. Less than 2% of Kentucky farms sold for $500,000 or more dollars in 2007. If memory serves, I believe that an individual can leave his or her family $1 million dollars free and clear of the estate tax, so 98% of Kentucky farmers will owe no estate tax. Yet here we have two Senate candidates falling all over themselves to save Kentucky family farmers.
The economic crank, Rand Paul, won the election, by the way.
Barring any significant changes in the state of education in America, we are stuck with the American publics’ economic illiteracy for the foreseeable future. Given its pervasiveness, I believe that economic illiteracy is not a new phenomenon for Americans. In the past, what has offset your typical Americans’ economic illiteracy was strong progressive economic leadership. While your average American voter could not define the law of supply and demand, there were Democrats who could articulate progressive economic polices that resonated with the voters, despite the voters’ appalling economic illiteracy.
Unfortunately, we do not have such a leader in the best bully pulpit available to Democrats: the White House. As most on FDL have realized long ago, Obama does not really believe in progressive economic policies. In fact, Obama has been accused of embracing Reaganomics by at least one progressive Democratic Congressman, and I think the evidence over the last two years supports this thesis.
Frankly, the dearth of proponents in the establishment offering progressive economic solutions to our current economic mess is discouraging, to say the least. The Congressional Democratic leadership and the media are AWOL on presenting the pros of a progressive economic agenda, and Obama, deep down, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. Basically, it appears to be left to the few progressives in Congress and the grassroots of the Democratic Party to provide the energy to promote a progressive economic agenda.
American economic illiteracy is a deep hurdle for progressives to overcome folks, but what other choices do we have to promote and enact progressive economics policies?




199 Comments

According to the most “conservative” approaches to macroeconomics I know: the classical approach favored by Chicago School Monetarists, and one of its offshoots, Ricardian Equivalence, the absolutely best-case, most unrealistic (but still theoretically possible) scenario is that reducing the goverenment budget deficit by cutting government purchases and transfers and/or increasing taxes would have no adverse effect on the level of economic activity. Far more likely is that it would have an adverse effect on economic activity by reducing aggregate demand. The idea that moving the government budget toward surplus could cause an increase in GDP in anything but the very long run (in which case it’s theoretically possible that lower interest rates could cause an increase in capital formation, resulting in a supply side induced increase in output) has no basis in any accepted economic theory.
In short, obsessing about the deficit is “code” for obsessing about something else, which I imagine is the fear that somebody, somewhere is getting something from the government that they don’t “deserve,” or the more amorphous fear about the growing “size” of govermnent.
On the other hand, increasing unemployment benefits would almost certainly increase the amount and duration of unemployment by reducing the opportunity cost of not being employed and of extending the duration of job searches.
The latter point is very basic economic theory. The former point, having to do with the budget deficit, is not basic, nor is anything else in the area of macroeconomics, which is why macroeconomists argue a lot more than microeconomists.
The Money Masters part 1.
The Money Masters part 2.
I don’t need economic literacy to figure out that I’ve been robbed, am being robbed, and apparently will continue being robbed, as long as this bipartisan kleptocracy remains ensconced in the corridors of power.
The dismal science is so beholden to their paymasters that their theories are correspondingly dismal.
To prove the rule, I’ll offer this exception, again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe9PkSADW2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG4dkMURxPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOsw2To4GRY
Hi, working!
In case you have not followed him:
Part 2 of an Interview with Right Livelihood Award Recipient Manfred Max-Neef.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpiFix6D4w0
The links below, show you a man after your (and my) heart.
Thanks for the links.
“Now, I define economic literacy, for the sake of this blog, as understanding SOME of the tenants of basic economics.”
I think you mean “tenets.”
He could be talking about a bit of economic history, the enclosure movement, which was about evicting tenants. ;-)
stewartm, not mutually exclusive.
too many words for this economic illiterate…prefer to let The Krugman translate for me. /s
I took a year of econ in college–in retrospect, reading your article, it might have been a wise choice. Although I’m hardly an economist, that course means at least I’m not fazed by the public policy discussions involving economics.
A point that needs to be elaborated is that there is a whole non-empirical, “fundamentalist” school of economics–the Austrian school–largely kept afloat by right-wing billionaire money. In economics just much as with religion or social policy, 21st conservative thinking seems enamored of “fundamentalism” based on a priori “truths”.
stewartm
http://www.hsalliance.org/statistics/index.asp
* 69% of all high school students graduate. (i.e.31% do not)
* 30% of college freshmen don’t make it to sophomore year, and less than 50% receive college degrees.
The problems of economic illiteracy are a subset of the problems of generally poor education in the US.
I don’t know what your high school was like, but economics in mine would have been of the form of “here is how to balance your checkbook”, and “if you haven’t learned to tell time, yet, we’ll go through it one more time”.
seriously though, it’s not so much that the ‘murcans are illiterate or ignorant (which they are) as they are misinformed. actively misinformed by the MSM that repeats all the zombie lies that duncan & the krugman keep banging on about. it’s not a messaging issue, but an information/propaganda war, and we’re losing.
Colleges and Universities are Socialist plot by Satan against Jayzuz.
Educating the average voter in economics theory and practice is impossible.
Personally IMO those with power to set policy that would create more jobs and better jobs has no interest in doing this. I think they have in mind a continuation of the globalization process and creating a “new normal” lower wages, fewer benefits, and higher unemployment for the vast majority of workers. Worst in my view is the degradation of aesthetics and civility. “Short and brutal.”
Workers who in Davos land are nothing more than domesticated pigs and cattle of agri-corporations. Valued for how much profit can be wrung from their labor.
For someone of age there is the realization that much has already happened. Only one trip to the mall with its garbage goods which is all available to us common folk is proof.
Though I deny economics as science I do honor the discipline as one more intending to seek to explain how things work; I think the path that must be taken is one to restore and preserve human rights and dignity. And fit the economics to that, not fit quality of life to profit.
Last night a diary by Wendy used one of the Norman Rockwell Paintings of the Four Freedoms. as enunciated by FDR in his 1941 State of the Union. Now they seem archaic and Utopian.
Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
A good place to start if we are to restore a reasonable quality of life for most of our people. People I think can understand these goals, Tie the theory to the goal. I think most folks can understand.
Here is the Wikipedia descriptive article. Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
The right is good at coming up with catch-phrases and various other framing devices that get large numbers of people to support neo-liberal policies. In the past our side was better at this but not any more.
for Americans to get economics they first must be able to read and write and add.
there has been very little of that taught in schools lately.
also the media controls what is shown and the topics are relatively safe and uncontroversial.
things that might cause Americans to think are few and far between.
Americans are exceptional, have always been told that and what need would there be to change such a concept? Keeping Americans ignorant of what goes on anywhere in the world, much less talk about “serious” topics like economics is not what the media focuses upon.
America is a guinea pig used by the media for “just so” stories. and as a result, Americans are quite ignorant of most anything the media refuses to educate them about.
surprise, surprise, surprise.
Increasing unemployment benefits doesn’t always increase the amount and duration of unemployment. It depends a lot on the shape which the economy is in.
Right now, companies are not interested in hiring. Thus, the length of unemployment insurance will not effect unemployment.
We are currently in a situation where it is the corporations which need incentives to hire. Simply beating up unemployed workers is not going to improve the employment numbers.
well said, – start to lurk a lot less.
Economic illiteracy is a serious problem, and points to several even deeper ones, some of which have been touched on by other commentators:
(1) Excessively concrete thinking, and inability to get excited about abstractions. It’s easy to make fun of old-time Marxists and their interweaving of technical jargon with passionate sloganeering, but their strong theoretical base – and their thorough integration of passion with reason – made it easy for them to see through the other side’s intentional obfuscation. Today, as Matt Taibbi has pointed out, average Americans looking at the foreclosure racket see only deadbeats and debt collection; they’re blind to the Ponzi scheme that drives the whole process, and to the legalization of crime through corporate bribery of the political (and judicial) system.
(2) Anti-intellectualism. The wonders of computer engineering have made some progress on this front – when I was growing up, I never thought I would see the day when “geek” and “nerd” could have positive connotations! – but we have a long way to go. Tea Party populism succeeds in large part by exploiting the public’s wish to believe that stupidity, prejudice, and simplistic thinking are virtues.
(3) Generally poor education on all fronts, not just economics. The Right always tries to undermine public education.
Dear Sir:
Yes. The misinformed are actually qualitatively more ignorant than the uninformed.
Also, willful ignorance is a subset of stupidity.
The rich and the powerful have us debating the wrong thing. They want to endlessly discuss and manipulate process without ever establishing agreement on the ends. That is because their notion of best out come is, as I said above, a domesticated work force. To Liberals the end results matter. We liberals seek a decent life for the majority of the people. The rich and powerful do not share this interest in end other than their own profit and power; indeed many of the “ideological” seek to punish various classes they disapprove of.
Thanks for posting the link to the Fed’s “are you a monetarist” quiz. It was fun and short — only 13 questions. OK, I got them all right.
The question about economic literacy is essentially this — will you stand by and let politicians socialize investor losses using government (taxpayer) funds? I wish the dems would just say no to socializing private losses, but this is where the economic rubber hits the political road.
We assume that our best interests are being represented by the elected elite. This is clearly not the case since, oh about Nixon.
We’re in for a quite wake up call. And the Fed’s answering machine is singing through auto-tune… Nobody Knows The Trouble I’ve Seen…
Maybe I sound like a broken record, but regardless of the Fed’s funny money magic, demand deflation is not inflationary, it is deflationary.
You seem to be blaming the victims of these crimes. Is that your intent?
I took econ, micro and macro in college…. it was mostly calculus with a few theories sprinkled in. It didn’t cover kleptocracy, media lies or financial fraud.
Anyway, one simple thing which needs to be beaten into peoples heads: Unemployment is the squandering of potential labor. A policy of high unemployment is the policy of wasting scarce resources.
Obama is like a farmer who forgot to plant half of his fields. There’s weeds(finance) growing everywhere and an aweful lot of sunlight going to waste.
“It didn’t cover kleptocracy, media lies or financial fraud.”
Sorry, that requires a PhD and some postdoc work in DC.
Which is it? The economic illiteracy of the people? The economic illiteracy of the Congress? The economic illiteracy of the President’s advisers? The economic illiteracy of the President?
They are somewhat related. Members of Congress are constrained by their economic illiteracy and the economic illiteracy of their constituents. The President selects as advisers someone who has had practical experience (and generally not academic experience) in economic affairs. Given the lag between Democratic administrations, the list of folks with actual experience was pretty limited and not exciting. And the practical view of economics that most people have comes from (a) their own interaction with the economy — so-called kitchen table issues and (b) what business owners tell them either those they know or those who monopolize the discussion of economic in the media. If they have investments, they know a little bit more but from the perspective of the business press, which conflates economic priorities and business priorities. Very few people actually had economics in high school, and when it does occur it is combined with civics so as to provide a pro-American, anti-socialist indoctrination into the free market.
Academic economics used to distinguish between descriptive economics and normative economics — between how any economy operates and valued statements about how to have an economy succeed at social ends.
There are in fact three ways of dealing with scarcity. Tradition, such as permitting estates. Decree, such as commandeering elements of the economy for the military. Markets, which are modeled as institutions in which individual participants only react to and cannot control pricing.
So the problem with economic debate in the US comes down to:
1. Making decisions among the three ways of handling scarcity. Even the market fundamentalists are not really advocating for markets; that is just polemics.
2. Mistaking individual goals for the economy as being directly what the economy needs. This is most apparent in the idea that what is good for business is good for the economy. It clearly has not been. Policy has made it possible for some folks to hoard goods and avoid economic competition and condemned others to be in a cutthroat competition for the remaining goods and services.
3. Not understanding that the market cannot provide the mechanism for distributing goods and services that everyone needs to have unless those necessities are relative inexpensive of substitutable. Markets cannot provide everyone with needed health care or education or certain network services such as transportation, water/sewer piping, or communications (the requirement for a postal service was the Founding Fathers’ recognitions of this).
4. The damaging effects of Cold War anti-communist propaganda that can shut down debate with a single charge of “socialism”. This is a hysteria born of the Reagan administration and peddled by the business, medical specialist, and chamber of commerce interests in every little community in the US.
5. The failure of the media and politicians to distinguish between recessions caused by a withdrawal of liquidity (such as the IT bust–there was no reason to savage communications companies like BellSouth or GTE for the bad investments in teenage dotcoms; there was growing demand for internet connectivity and online services) and demand-driven recessions that result from overcompensation for a price or liquidity shock or transfer risk from the folks who blew it to innocent bystanders.
6. The unwillingness to do a little common sense thinking about demand. Where does it come from? Consumers, businesses, the net of exports minus imports, and government. If consumers can’t spend, businesses tend not to want to spend. If consumers in other countries are not buying goods from you as fast as you are buying goods from them, businesses tend not to want to spend. If businesses are not spending and consumers can’t spend, who is left as a last resort? Government.
7. Where progressives often go wrong in their advocacy of Keynesianism is that it does matter immensely where the money is spent for the future recapture of those costs as tax revenues. Military spending unless it is for dual-use goods and services like the interstate highway system or the internet is a sunk cost not an investment in an asset. The next time period, it is also a sunk cost. So any deficit spending is best aimed at developing assets that can reduce the costs to consumers and costs of doing business in the future. The second area in which progressives go wrong is in not advocating higher taxes to recapture those costs when a boom is tending into a bubble. Instead of taking the punchbowl away from the party only through using the Fed, use fiscal policies as well. Progressives tend to take booms for granted.
7. Dealing with progressive economic policies increasingly requires progressives to network internationally for common global economic policies–especially with regard to labor standards and the environment, but also accounting rules and commercial law.
The bully pulpit doesn’t amount to much if no one is listening.
“The bully pulpit doesn’t amount to much if no one is listening.”
True. But it’s worth a try. Problem is: We have an economic illiterate at the helm, advised by fucking criminals.
A very good and inexpensive education in Political Economy, which I think is what’s needed here, is available at the Henry George Schools and (via Internet) thru the Henry George Institute.
Are you suggesting that managing this nation’s economy is not like ma and me balancing the family checkbook at the kitchen table?
What a damn outrage!
All that booze and sex.
Hey, congratulations!
Thanks :)
The World Social Forum is the counterbalance to Davos. The next one is February 6-11, 2011 in Dakar, Senegal.
If the globalization process is the agenda, there needs to be pressure on that process internationally to compete to the top, not race to the bottom. Participation in groups like this are one way to build a network in support of labor standards, environmental standard, reduction of income inequality, and so on.
BTW, OG, there is a difference between balancing your checkbook and balancing your budget. Ask Ma. (Just fucking with you.)
While willful ignorance is infuriating, and while it’s true that you end up more ignorant after watching an episode of Beck or Hannity than you were beforehand, I don’t blame my tea party relatives for their stupidity, any more than I blame the Left for voting for Democrats. As Einstein said, you can do what you will, but you can’t will what you will.
Alot of tea partiers did take those two economics classes in college, and they were taught Milton Friedman. Most Dems in Congress likewise seem to have been infected by supply side theory during their college years. So I guess I take issue with the contention that an understanding of basic economic theory will solve the problem; you have to keep up with academic economic analysis since Reagan to be able to show how, in practice, conservatives abandoned SS theory as not forming a reasonable foundation for governance. or Read Jamie Galbraith’s last book.
Most Presidents are economically illiterate. Given the state of academic economics, it is difficult to get a group of advisers who are capable of getting the levers of power pulled, who aren’t captives of the elites.
Someone like Krugman can recommend and critically review policy, but he can’t persuade the necessary folks in the Fed bureaucracy and leadership to move in a certain direction, nor can he necessarily manage the finances of a large nation. And those have to be done as well as convincing Congress to support certain policy initiatives.
The adviser problem is a Catch-22 situation for anyone but a captive of Wall Street. Democrats have problems. These are Republicans’ consituency — the haves and the have-mores.
Right now, you probably have a better shot at a bully pulpit than Barack Obama does. The national media ownership is not actively trying to shut you down.
Yep, to balance the budget like the federal government balances the budget, you have to write your house purchase off in 1 year. Now, live within your means.
Very nicely laid out.
Unemployment is the policy of wasting people. People are more than resources. They are fellow human beings and politicians who favor continuing wasting them are pure scum.
I hear Palin teaches the String Theory class.
Great comments in this thread. More economic literacy here on FDL than any righty-nighty blog. Another fun-to-read econ blog is Zero Hedge although the political commentary is not as well informed as on FDL.
If the linky-poo button hadn’t been yanked, I’d offer a couple of other links like Naked Capitalism (Yay 4 Yves!) and FT alphaville (Eurothrash on-line).
Oh.
Hey, economics isn’t a science… it’s an experiment!!
Yay for the internet. Hey, where else can nerd/geek/troll spout off?!
Last night a diary by Wendy used one of the Norman Rockwell Paintings of the Four Freedoms. as enunciated by FDR in his 1941 State of the Union. Now they seem archaic and Utopian.
Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
A good place to start if we are to restore a reasonable quality of life for most of our people. People I think can understand these goals, Tie the theory to the goal. I think most folks can understand.
I remember growing up how conservatives denigrated the last two as not “real freedoms” at all. It’s taken revisiting economic calamity after unlearning the lessons of the 1920s and 1930s to re-invigorate the meaning of FDR’s four freedoms.
stewartm
Good information. Thanks!
I paid cash for the single-wide.
This is where the debate is. They will wither away completely if we do not take up and force the debate into the open. These conservative models for economics are not promoted with the assumption or desire to preserve the concepts.
How do you expect people to be competent in economics, when most of the experts are complete idiots (and Republican)?
*bonk*
Nope. Just one MIT grad who started helping a niece on a video writing pad who figured the format could lots and lots of people.
http://www.khanacademy.org/about
BTW, the FED quiz seemed extremely right wing to me. It would probably actually be a bad thing if people had scored highly on this test.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3580
1) Wheat – Oil Trading… You’re given so little information that the question is meaningless. Specialization has both limits and drawbacks. So the question mostly seems to push the right wing idea that trade is always a good thing.
2) I wish managing scarce resources was an important task to economists but they seem entirely focused on manufacturing theory to match desired establishment policy.
3) This pretends that the economic pie is static in size, neither growing nor shrinking.
4) This one is fair enough but specialization does have it’s limits.
5) The myth of the free market…
6) The myth of the free market…
7) In our case, higher minimum wages would increase employment because we have a horribly large income inequality gap. Narrowing that gap would be one way to help to fix our economy.
8) This one’s true but still rather shallow. It’s far from the only reason why some earn fantastic wages.
9) None of the above. The answer should be one that maximizes sustainable life supporting economic activity. Things like the BP oil spill just don’t fit in a spreadsheet like these pointy haired types would like it to.
10) This one is more or less correct in it’s own limited way.
11) duh
12) Moneterists are… the pits. The best tools to fight inflation are taxation and infrastructure investments. Look at the Civil War… we used a broad system of taxation and railroal construction to keep the union greenback from turning into confederate toilet paper.
13) Finally… ok this question is sensible.
On the other hand, increasing unemployment benefits would almost certainly increase the amount and duration of unemployment by reducing the opportunity cost of not being employed and of extending the duration of job searches.
I would only concur with that even in theory in cases of *private* “unemployment benefits” (i.e., severance pay), which is usually equal to one’s pay while working. But even with that case, one loses health care benefits after a few months, which incurs a lot of cost for not working.
But arguing that the typical government-provided minimum-wage unemployment benefit paycheck significantly reducing the cost of unemployment? Please. It’s slow starvation.
stewartm
Economic outcomes are about power. All the economic knowledge in the world absent that realization is useless. No, its worse, for without that knowledge you will be lost in a wilderness of theory presenting a range of possible policies all of which will be gamed by those with the most power. It’s the political economy stupid.
As income, capital gains and corporate taxes were lowered power flowed to the top. So much so that the financial elites gained the power to create assets out of thin air and direct the profits to themselves. They gained control of money itself. Since there is still not the slightest possibility that taxes on those with wealth and power will increase it is absolutely certain that their power will not lessen. Forget politics and forget economics.
Well there is one caveat to the above,or there could have been. If the systematic fraud that is the heart of the financial world would have been attacked by the application of criminal law and the pigmen would have been removed and faced the law then things would have started to change.
Jingle mail the national keys to China.
/s
Sounds like…echos from the past… bouncing off the future…
There is a sudden severe drop in people willing to lend and also in people wanting to borrow. If people, institutions really, don’t want to or can’t lend at todays rates why will they be willing or able to at a lower one?
In our system… yes. Other systems are a bit kinder to the unemployed.
Still, I believe a system of full employment is best. And yes the folks in DC are scum.
The BIG problem with economics as it is taught these days is that virtually ALL economics departments in USA universities are staffed by the most narrow-minded right-wing crazies imaginable. And they have done a superb job of driving out all alternative thinking. For example, James Galbraith is NOT in the econ department at Texas / Austin–he is in the school of public affairs. As another example, Paul Krugman is the furthest left economist with a major speaking platform (NYT) and he was once awarded the John Bates Clark medal for the most promising conservative economist in the land.
Fortunately, there ARE a few econ sites devoted to the sort of economics once widely taught during the Great Prosperity. My favorite is:
http://real-economics.blogspot.com/
Please bear in mind that, nowadays, economics is taught in high schools and universities from a right-wing, neoclassical, Milton Friedmanite, University of Chicago perspective. Just pick up any Econ textbook that is commonly used in current courses and you’ll see what I mean. The right-wing, free-market, anti-tax, anti-government slants are present in almost every commonly used textbook. The fact of the matter is that the entire Economics discipline is lost in mathematical modeling and simplistic “Free-market reasoning”. Don’t get me wrong because some of the theories that predate neoclassical economics are useful, but, if you are wondering why so many politicians and voters preach trickle down economics and leaving everything up to the private sector while government does nothing other than enforce property rights, read an Econ textbook such as the one by Gwartney. You’ll find all of those “theories” (i.e. Laffer Curve, free market fundamentalism, etc.) there in addition to dubious justifications for their applicability and validity.
So don’t be surprised if so many are economically illiterate and if the economy and the political system of the U.S. are both presently nonfunctional because Economics, which is probably the one social science that most directly and powerfully affects the destinies of individuals and society, is being taught wrong. The pedagogy of Economics drastically needs to be improved. Also, Economics desperately needs an infusion of ethics which is currently lacking, thus it should not be a surprise why the U.S. is presently practicing Kleptnomics.
agreed!
“almost certainly” – not really. There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that this is not always the case, such as when corporations are having record profits and there is a glut of 15 million unemployed people with more graduating from college every year.
And unless it was a virtual certainty, why would you want to starve people?
We never even did checkbooks at my high school – no finance or econ class was available at all, so far as i can remember. but it was a while ago.
Not exclusively. My daughter’s economic textbook in college was by Stiglitz.
But the bigger problem is that most students don’t take economics at all.
The lead article is economically illiterate.
Government transfer spending has no “multiplier” effect, and cannot create a real job. At best government transfer spending can shift money from one place to another, while wasting a lot along the way. The question is not how many jobs the “stimulus” bill created, but how many it destroyed.
Hayek and Mises are correct; Keynes is wrong. We see the empirical proof all around us.
And yes, of course unemployment insurance creates unemployment. When you offer to pay for something you get more of it; when you tax something you get less of it. Basic economics.
Which crimes are you referring to? Please be more specific.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I would like to see the four freedoms enter the lexicon. There is unifying power in these words.
Is capitalism sustainable?
Economics, the academic discipline is about (a) decision-making at the level of a firm and (b) decision-making at the level of government finance ministries. Political science is about power and the operation, structuring, and communication of power relationships. They are academically separate for purpose of analysis of the processes, like physics, chemistry, and biology are separate. Policy requires reintegration of economics, politics, and culture. Medicine requires reintegration of physics, chemistry, and biology.
Of course in looking at policy you have to look at who holds the power. Cultural power, for example respect for legal process or shame or moral restraint, can check economic or political power and has historically. What we are looking at since the beginning of the industrial revolution is the economization of society–politics gets hamstrung by cost/benefit budgets, culture gets reduced to economic value and price and cost and revenue and profit. The failure of criminal law to act in the US is a failure of political culture, one that has been created by the efforts of the Federal Society to take over US courts and understandings of jurisprudence. And the economic power that can hire regiments of lawyers to overwhelm civil society.
I should have said that I do not forget that it is the ignorant who become enlightened. Thank you.
You know, Stiglitz is much better than most of the right-wingers but compared to some of the really interesting guys like the Institutionalists (best-known living example Michael Hudson) or the Evolutionary crowd, Stiglitz is pretty conventional. When I was taking econ at the VERY Keynesian U. of Minnesota during the early 1970s, a guy like Stiglitz was so far to the right of the crowd I hung out with, he would have been suspected as a narc.
It comes via John Perkins The Secret History of the American Empire.
sustainable like the Easter Island Statue Builders society.
sustainable like a petri-dish culture when it runs out of growth medium.
Short answer: NO, not with only 1 planet.
Gee, we haven’t heard that craziness enough. 35 years of you Von Hayek guys dominating the conversation and we have de-industrialized to third-world status, we are in debt up to our ears, the fraud in the FIRE sectors of the economy approaches infinite, our medicine is simultaneously the most expensive and damn near the most dangerous, etc. etc.
Exactly what will it take for you guys to admit you are as wrong in all aspects of your understanding of economics as the Marxists of the old USSR? I mean, obviously the facts on the ground mean nothing to you.
I grew up around religious nuts. Some of the stuff folks believe scared me half to death. But compared to you Austrian crazies, those folks are soul of rationality and open-mindedness.
Economists: Priesthood of a false religion.
Excellent!!!
The primary fault is that otherwise rational people believe that there can be continuous geometric growth in a finite biosphere–a belief that makes them functionally crazy. The freaking Sumerians understood S-curve growth in 3000 BC!
So long as we allow moneylenders to charge compound interest, our real economy is mathematically certain to fail. And guess what folks–math works.
Online lectures are not the same thing as teaching. I just thought I’d mention that because Bill Gates is a big fan/promoter of Khan as an example of why we don’t need public education anymore.
The estate tax exemption was $1 m in 2003 and rose to $3.5 in 2009 and zero this year. Obama wants it at 3.5 m for individuals and 7.0 m for couples, last I read. Pretty generous.
This was a good thread. Lots of interesting thought. I continue to believe that politicians make it up as they go and he with the biggest stick wins. Obama had a chance and blew it. What next? He is unlikely to even increase the tax rate on the wealthy, which preumably could satisfy his deficit reduction craze. When he put that tax cut shit in the stimulus, I figured it was doomed since it has so little multiplier effect. Also, they apparently paid no attention at all to what was happening at the state level. Or, for that matter, of trying to get the money out there quickly to make a difference. But shit, wars do increase demand, for awhwile anyway.
Based on the last two years, I would say no. Government is incapable of making rational decisions. If we escape this time,next we won’t.
I fail to see how you can categorically say Keynes was “wrong’. He was talking about aggregate demand. Unemployment results when demand falls. Government can increase investment spending in the economy on things like infrastructure and that puts people back to work and creates demand. Not too terribly complicated. If you don’t spend enough, you don’t increase demand sufficiently to reduce unemployment. That’s what was wrong with the 800 billion. It should have been much larger and arguablt spent differently. O blew it.
My answer got posted above. I’m not literate in this new format.
We are in debt “up to our ears” primarily due to the monopoly-provider positions of public unions, whose fraudulent pension schemes threaten state and municipal insolvency.
As for “de-industrialization” and so forth, the free-market reforms of Reagan created the largest sustained multi-decade increase in GDP ever for a large, mature economy, finally defeating the Keynesian stagflation of the Nixon-Ford-Carter 1970′s. Total population, percentage of the population with college degrees, longevity, medical innovation and general patent production have all increased fantastically since Reagan released the natural productivity of the American people from government control and the burdens of punitive taxation.
Of course we have high unemployment now. Obama’s leftist tax, spend and regulate policies are causing it.
It strikes me that is one of the problems with economics. It is not science. It has any manner of priests. We all like to worship at our special one. I, like many, happen to believe in the rationality of what I understand as Keynes to increase aggregate demand in a recession.
Thanks. Super illumination. I have learned.
Amazing how you left out exceedingly low taxes on the rich and several wars and the wall street fiasco to blame public unions. And how the multi decade just ended was the result of speculation on housing bets. You know the game, buy it today and sell it tomorrow at 50% profit. Tell me again just how Reagan made all the good stuff happen and avoided all the bad stuff?
Keynes is wrong because “aggregate demand” does not create jobs and GDP growth. Productivity and savings and technological innovation create jobs and wealth and GDP growth. If you rob Peter to pay Paul to increase “aggregate demand” (and government deficits are merely future taxation or inflation, per Ricardo) then unless Peter is very very stupid, he hoards and hides his money next time to avoid having it stolen. Thus business owners have plenty of cash, but won’t hire, so no jobs. Easy as adding 1 and 2 to get 3.
The public has little if any “infrastructure” to show for the 900 billion dollars. Even Obama admits there were no “shovel ready” infrastructure jobs to spend on. The reckless government spending binge is destroying jobs, not creating them, as people who own capital and businesses hoard their cash and don’t hire in fear of future government theft by taxation and regulation.
Taxes on those who work and have high incomes (not necessarily rich, we have an income tax, not a wealth tax in our country) are not “low,” they are extremely high and punitive and economically destructive to both the private sector and the government. The right percentage for maximum revenue generation by the government is in the mid-20′s. This is an empirical fact documented by every one from Andrew Mellon, to Obama advisor Christina Romer, to even Keynes himself! (Google is your friend, use it to check my references.)
When you tax something you get less of it. Taxing income from work means you get less work in the economy. And people wonder why we have high unemployment now. Lowering taxes improved employment and government revenue for Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Thatcher and Bush. The truth shall set you free.
If one spends money to build a road, let’s say, someone has to build it. That is demand and that results in people being hired, to build the road. Now Keynes would likely say that one must pay back the money and that comes from taxes in the future. More people working, more taxes and if need be increase the taxes. More people working means they spend money to buy things and those people buy things as well (multiplier effect) and they all pay taxes. As people are put to work innovation and productivity naturally occur or you can spend money on basic research just like a road. Yes, O blew the stimulus to some degree due to idiots. But without it, he is quite right, unemployment might have been a few million higher today.
But the wealthy are the ones we are talking about here. They simply do not pay enough taxes. O does not want to increase taxes on the middle class. Lowering taxes can indeed increase employment just like stimulus. But taxes on the wealthy do not have the same effect, b/c they save it. Hence, lower demand. I would love to lower taxes on the middle class but everyone is talking about increasing them, you know on SS, medicare and the like. That is just foolhardy. But we have all become deficit hawks. You may also have noticed the disparity in income between the very rich and the middle class. Oh yeah you get less of things when you tax them, excepting wars I suppose. Who pays for them?
The money was not spent to build roads. That was PR fluff. It evaporated in unemployment “benefits” and other transfer payments and union pension funds. No roads, no energy, no research. I doubt 3% of the “stimulus” had any legitimate social investment function.
A larger corrupt “stimulus” pork program would simply have added more debt and destroyed more jobs.
bluedot12: It occurs to me that you are confusing the concepts of “aggregate demand” with “social infrastructure investment”. They are, clearly, different.
“Sadly — no, tragically — most Americans don’t know a damn thing about economics.”
True. Republicans and their Blue Dog syncophants in particular don’t know the difference between investment and expense. They and their gambling addict friends of Wall Street are obsessed with short term return and instant gratification instead of investing for the long haul. They wrongly portray the stimulus as unrecoverable expense off our bottom line instead of the investment with the expectation of a reasonable return over time that it is.
To them, blissful ignorance is a badge of honor. Small wonder that educated and informed people are such a threat to them.
It was spent in roughly thirds I think: states, taxes and other like infrastructure. Unemployment insurance is one of the best forms of spending to increase demand because it is nearly all spent. (There are actually a number of roads around here, so much in fact I am fed up with it all. But it clearly was not all roads.) BTW most families got an $800 reduction in taxes in 2010. And that all got spent, as did the $250 to SS recipients.
I’m not sure I even know what you mean by social infrastruture investment ? You mean like Facebook?
Sal Khan is creating a learning resource where there currently NOTHING, ZERO. Neither Khan nor Gates has said shit about these tutorials being a replacement for ANYTHING.
Gates mentioned his son is using them to help him in math. Gates sent Khan a donation. That’s it.
Sal Khan did something nice for you and everybody else, and you’re shitting on him. No good deed goes unpunished. I hate it when people do that.
yes the whole idea that tax rates on the wealthy are too high is hogwash. these are the only people who have the money. just like a bank, you go where the money is, or used to be, in banks.
also taxing capital gains and idle wealth differently than job producing wealth are two different creatures. one encourages hoarding, the other encourages growth.
and wealth earned on money needs to taxed at a higher rate than other forms of income.
also, taxes make investments into a society possible. increases the value of the society.
taxes are a plus to society when invested properly. this is a win win situation with a positive return on the investment. a social investment vs a private investment. different kinds of returns, different goals.
why are taxes seen as negative? when taxes are responsible for positive investment of the world, society, we live in. taxes help improve society. That way taxpayers have an interest in where their money is spent.
as shown in California and elsewhere, you get what you pay for. and unless you are willing to pay for what you want, you get nothing. which is where we are today.
taxes are viewed negatively as a disinvestment of the world we live in. Taxes make our world better. of course, wise use of taxes wouldn’t have led us to where we are today.
all this “free lunch” something for nothing behavior of the last 40 years. where dumping the bills on the next generation only makes things cost more.
penny wise and pound foolish. do repair and renovation as a preventative, cost saving matter now. this whole idea of putting off till tomorrow is so wasteful.
tax the rich cause they are dependent upon us or were dependent upon the rest of us to make them rich. they didn’t get rich all by themselves. and membership in society has it costs. they need to pay their fair share, whatever that is.
Economics isn’t about money, it is about energy.
The “Powers That Be” control the means of energy production, storage and distribution. They own the plantation and we are but willing servants.
But we would all perish without the Sun and photosynthesis. So nature ultimately trumps mankind. The root of militant ignorance is systemically vulnerable to this truth.
Here’s some truth Cyvern…
“…The easiest thing was buy into the system, convince ourselves that there was no other way to live. A few semesters worth of economics classes certainly helped; the in-house economics classes taught by the bank helped even more. The financial markets operate on the principle that, at our core, we’re all basically shit: selfish, self-interested creatures. There’s a whole branch of economics devoted to proving that if you help someone, say, run in front of a speeding train to push another person out of the way, you are actually acting out of self-interest, not altruism; that what most of us would consider humankind’s cardinal virtues – love, honor, compassion – do not actually exist.
The idea that we’re nothing more than selfish animals is an attractive philosophy to a person pulling down a few million dollars a year. It is a philosophy that negates guilt. The guilty feeling a normal person gets while visiting a Third World country is the same feeling a senior investment banker gets when they see a working class neighborhood in Birmingham or Philadelphia. When your paycheck could cover the salaries of a few hundred nurses or teachers, you need some explanation for why that’s okay. The only one that really works is that life is a pure meritocracy. That whether rich or poor, we’re all getting what we deserve.
The fact is, I became pretty good at making this argument myself. Until a roommate of mine, a guy named Mark Brewin, asked me: “So is that really what you want to be? A selfish animal?” “It’s not like we have a choice,” I said. “No,” he said. “You always have a choice. It’s just easier to pretend that you don’t.” Ouch. The strangest thing was, this thing I’d wanted for so long, this chance to become wealthy, was causing me more internal conflict than anything I’d ever done. I began writing a second novel, about a kid from the provinces who comes to Wall Street and is both drawn in and horrified by the culture of excess.
I understood it well. I put on 45 pounds in my first year at the bank, and, as you might guess, it was not from eating McDonalds. Occasionally I ate stuff like sushi, but mostly it was steak. We went to the good places like Sparks, Peter Luger’s, and the Strip House. We tended to look down on chains like Morton’s and Ruth’s Chris-they were for car dealers or stock brokers, not traders. Regardless of where we ate, we ate in quantity. My standard strategy was to order half a dozen appetisers, plus a steak and lobster, plus a few desserts and much wine as I could drink, as long it was under a few hundred dollars a bottle. Followed by a digestif, typically a 30-year-old port. There’s not any way to justify this except to say I was trying to catch up to my colleagues. We would treat those restaurants like Roman vomitoriums. And it wasn’t the food so much as the wine. Being a junior employee, I couldn’t really order bottles that cost more than a few hundred dollars, but the senior guys could get nicer stuff – Opus One, Chateau Latour. As long as we were out with a client, the bank paid. I remember being stunned the first time I saw a dinner bill for ten grand. But that was just the beginning.
What it boiled down to was austerity for everyone else and rampant consumption for ourselves. I never saw anyone literally set fire to money, but I did drink most of a bottle of 1983 Margaux ($2,000)….”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-excess–a-wall-street-trader-tells-all-1674614.html
Austrian school economics is pile of lies created by Bankers to delude themselves that it was to okay for them to act like “selfish animals” because everyone was “selfish animals.”
I agree with you about the slant of the FED quiz, but it was one of the few online economic quizzes available. I would have loved to link to a quiz from a progressive economist, but alas, I could not find one. But you are correct in your critics of the questions.
They guy wants to earn an honest living and he becomes … a journalist???
I gather you have never read any Austrian economists, since you don’t actually address their arguments.
bluedot – Spending does not create wealth. Production and saving create wealth. Unemployment insurance, especially expanded and long-term unemployment insurance, destroys jobs and wealth, it does not increase them. Read your Bastiat. Money transferred by government and spent by Paul, is money taken from Peter, who then is not very interested in working hard, investing long term, or hiring new employees to make more.
No wonder unemployment is high and companies are not hiring.
If the guy quit banking to become a dentist, I might have some respect for him. But a journalist? Sounds like a publicity hog to me.
I gather you can’t read the English language, because the Meyer is a novelist.
Again you still can’t read English, Meyer is novelist.
Austrian School Economist are anti-scientific theory and anti-math.
That’s a non-starter.
Stuff Reagan where he belongs. One lyin’ SOB after another destroying the country in a few decades.
Blaming the Unions because they tried to protect themselves is idiotic. The one example of Union malfeasance that I know of is the damn police union in Houston. Go out and fire half the cops to save some money.
I agree about the pork, but money spent has to create jobs according to economic theory. Do you and Rush disagree?
Obama needs to do nothing for the next two years. He’s a screw up!
Yeah, back in the day we had exponential taxation rates to help counter this problem. Top bracket was 91% under Ike, not sure if that’s even the historic max.
Yup.
And sadly, we make extremely poor use of our capacity. Our automobile economy is designed to use the maximum amount of energy for the least possible gain.
I’m currently reading Matt Taibbi’s wonderful new book “Griftopia” and he makes a similar point about the financial crises. Americans just can’t wrap their minds around it. It’s too complex. It’s so much easier to blame lazy homeowners or illegal immigrants or some simple thing they don’t have to think very much about.
This is the clear conservative advantage. They “keep it simple stupid” even if it’s wrong and the power elites simply pit American against American rather than allowing them to direct the anger at the real causes of the economic crises.
The media is compliant and even when they try to address these things in a rudimentary fashion you can hear Americans tuning out. Intellectially we’re a lazy society.
It takes reading, some research, a willingness to investigate through the tough stuff to find good answers and to make real sense of it all.
We’ve got things like Monday Night Football to worry about.
It’s a sad but true statement about our culture and the inevitable “dumbing down” we see all around us.
I send videos or links to friends and try to help them understand.
But they have no patience for it.
We are doomed, you know. Only we can save ourselves.
And I’m not holding out hope for that.
BTW, the FED quiz seemed extremely right wing to me. It would probably actually be a bad thing if people had scored highly on this test.
I concur; that was my assessment too when I took it (I got all the answers “right”, but since I had taken a year of econ in college, I knew what answers they were looking for).
7) In our case, higher minimum wages would increase employment because we have a horribly large income inequality gap. Narrowing that gap would be one way to help to fix our economy.
Agreed. What is also left out is that a low price for labor *discourages* technological innovation. It’s why slave societies, from ancient Greece and Rome to the antebellum South, or cheap-labor societies, like China and India have been traditionally, are not conducive to the implementation of technologies.
If one invents technology that does the work of 10 men, and it’s cheaper to just use 10 slaves, or coolies, then the technology will go unimplemented. This is why the Chinese–while they invented just about everything–did not put these inventions into doing useful economic work. By contrast, if the price of labor is dear one is compelled to try to devise more efficient means of producing the same goods. This actually happened even in what we think of as very “un-technological” times–such as Europe after the Black Death, where the more vulnerable peasants and lower classes died off at a higher rates than the privileged nobility, making labor scarce. This touched off a pre-modern technological boom era, witnessing everything from clocks to guns to eyeglasses, and which eventually resulted in the printing press.
So–despite all the neoliberal bruhahaha about how this new global capitalism is going to lead to a high-tech nirvana, what I think history teaches is that if it indeed is just a race-to-the-bottom for the lowest wage, then it will lead to quite the opposite: technological and economic stagnation, stagnation that might not be alleviated unless by some ghastly new Black Death which again make the price of labor expensive again.
stewartm
Taxes on those who work and have high incomes (not necessarily rich, we have an income tax, not a wealth tax in our country) are not “low,” they are extremely high and punitive and economically destructive to both the private sector and the government.
As 1) tax rates on the rich, including effective tax rates, are much lower now that they used to be during the Great American Prosperity of 1947-1973, and 2) the government debt-to-GDP ratio during that time plummeted, not escalated, I have a hard time finding all that “economic destruction”. Can you help us?
The right percentage for maximum revenue generation by the government is in the mid-20′s.
You mean, like those that contribute to capitalism’s near-collapse and Bailout Numero I? *Those* tax rates?
stewartm
We are in debt “up to our ears” primarily due to the monopoly-provider positions of public unions, whose fraudulent pension schemes threaten state and municipal insolvency.
HUH!? State and municipal insolvencies are caused more by the economic downturn caused by Reaganomics and the corresponding loss of revenues, rather than public unions. In fact, my state has the same budget problem as most, and we can count our union employees on the fingers of one ear.
As for “de-industrialization” and so forth, the free-market reforms of Reagan created the largest sustained multi-decade increase in GDP
A paper bubble, where most Americans lost ground and were poorer than before, and America became a net importer rather than exporter.
finally defeating the Keynesian stagflation of the Nixon-Ford-Carter 1970′s.
Which, in my opinion, was caused more by 1) guns-and-butter, 2) oil shocks, and 3) the first foolish Kennedy-LBJ tax cut. Tax cuts on the rich, even that one, just feed unproductive investment into the paper economy, adding money to the money supply, but which does not invest in real things that produce goods and services. Lowering taxes on the rich thus contribute to inflation.
And besides–you do know that a BIG part of the way that inflation was “brought under control” was er, that Reagan waved his magic wand and recalculated it away to knock about 5 points off the index?
stewartm
Keynes is wrong because “aggregate demand” does not create jobs and GDP growth. Productivity and savings and technological innovation create jobs and wealth and GDP growth.
Keynes is right. Only when there is a perceived demand for something, will people invest in the means to meet that demand. Without demand, savings just becomes a speculative paper chase–like Coolidge and Reaganomics.
stewartm
I gather you have never read any Austrian economists, since you don’t actually address their arguments.
What’s this now: an appeal to economics metaphysics?
The Austrian school is to economics what creation “science” is to biology.
stewartm
Yes, compared to Coase and North, Stiglitz is conventional. In fact, in the 1960s Stiglitz would be your standard issue economics professor describing why the New Deal worked. And don’t forget the proto-institutionalist John Kenneth Galbraith, whose The New Industrial State introduced the idea of government as a countervailing power to large corporations.
The idea that we’re nothing more than selfish animals is an attractive philosophy to a person pulling down a few million dollars a year. It is a philosophy that negates guilt. The guilty feeling a normal person gets while visiting a Third World country is the same feeling a senior investment banker gets when they see a working class neighborhood in Birmingham or Philadelphia. When your paycheck could cover the salaries of a few hundred nurses or teachers, you need some explanation for why that’s okay. The only one that really works is that life is a pure meritocracy. That whether rich or poor, we’re all getting what we deserve.
I wrote a blog on another sphere entitled “The Stalins among us”, about the hypothesis that a mild form of sociopathy, like those classically exhibited by serial murderers, or by a Stalin or a Hitler in their extreme forms, might actually be an asset in certain professions. If you’re guilt-free about stabbing former friends in the back when it benefits you on your climb to the top, if your life becomes an obsessive-compulsive climb towards “excellence”, bereft of normal human empathy or compassion towards anyone else, then might not at least a *mild* form of sociopathy be an asset?
(Mind you–this is not just about banksters or politicos. Pro athletes also exhibit some of these same traits. When “winning is the only thing” that matters in life, a la Vince Lombardi, then….???)
What gets me, is that the apologists for capitalism, like Ayn Rand, see a obsession with “excellence” that ignores your friends, your family, your spouse, even the needs of your own body, as something *noble*! It’s time to call it what it is–a form of mental disorder.
Finally, this is why I don’t buy into biological rationales for selfishness, a la Richard Dawkins or even Stephen Jay Gould. It seems to me that evolution is not just about selfish genes, there is something at work for species maintenance too. Indeed, that stands to reason, as even with purely selfish genes if the variation of a genome becomes too limited, if there is not enough variation (i.e., too few individuals left) the species is doomed.
That is why I believe sex and death evolved in more evolved organisms. Sex acts like “wealth redistribution”–no matter how supremely (temporarily) successful an individual is, his or her genes gets remixed and redistributed in the next generation. Death acts like steep progressive taxation on supremely (temporarily) successful individuals, placing a cap on the number of offspring they can breed: “No more breeding, that’s plenty enough now for you”.
These evolved, I believed, because of the danger that a relatively supremely (temporarily) successful individuals could bias the organisms genome and in essence simplify it. A simplified genome in a higher organism becomes a juicy target, like H. G. Well’s Martians, for fast-evolving bacteria. And it may not be the Charles Atlas who carries the genes that confer resistance to the next plague, but the 90-pound weakling instead. In biology, variation, variation, variation is what’s “good” and is what is maximized.
stewartm
The New Deal *caused* the Great Depression. It *worked* to increase unemployment, business failure, misery and economic decline by continuing Hoover’s policies of high taxes, regulation and government intervention into the economy under the mythology of “stimulating” it by government ukase. Read The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes.
I would concur that in some Western welfare democracies, the existence of generous allowance for not working will lower the “costs” of unemployment, as ihb58 so delicately put it. In Michael Moore’s Sicko, for instance, he talks about French health care, and how employees get paid leave for months for recovering from illnesses or treatments like chemotherapy.
But–is that a *bad thing*?? Many economists are schooled to think “yes”, based on short-term analysis of humans as mere widget-producers. Here, allowing someone 90 days paid leave to recover from chemo is allowing the widget-producer to stand idle, which they might count as unused capacity or even in forcing an employer to maintain excess idle employee “inventory”.
But human beings are not just widget-producers. Human beings are not labor inventory. Human beings do not exist to make an economic system work more efficiently, the economic system exists to supposedly serve the needs of human beings. That is the inversion of value that many economists fall victim to.
Moreover, allowing people to “stand idle” and not work has economic justification just as much as allowing agricultural land to stand idle to recover does. There are economic benefits to allow someone to be willfully unemployed to do things like to attend school or to take care of children or a ill relative, but these benefits are not usually captured by our traditional economic accounting metrics. Home spouses and farmers’ wives have long complained that the work they do (and it’s a lot) is not captured by our system and they are considered “not employed”. But they’re working their asses off, and making real contributions to boot.
stewartm
No wonder unemployment is high and companies are not hiring.
With no increase in spending for a product, there is no desire to increase production.
Let’s say you make widgets. If there is no increase in demand for widgets, why would you hire more employees to make them, or build another widget factory? All you’ll do is by that is to a) increase your costs and b) by flooding the market with more widgets which are left lying on shelves, then decrease your profits–if not drive yourself to bankruptcy.
What you do instead with your widget profits where there is no demand is what has happened in the Reagan era–you look to buy up other widget companies, or you look into other “investments” which involve the transfer of paper only, and not any increase in the production of real goods or the delivery of real services.
stewartm
You cannot “tax your way to prosperity”.
“Demand” created via government transfer payments (e.g. unemployment “benefits”, “stimulus” checks added to SS, which both the Keynesians Bush and Obama did) is not stable since it does not come from productive work and genuine earnings, but from forced transfer of wealth, thus no rational businessperson invests and hires based on this highly artificial and unsustainable “demand”.
Re: wars.
I actually voted for Obama because I wanted to get the military out of Iraq, and I foolishly thought he would do that. I was also opposed to Bush’s reckless Keynesian spending spree ($250 checks, unfunded wars, Medicare drug bennies), and did not think that the Republicans would offer a genuine free market alternative to Obama’s statism. The rise of the Tea Party, and the impressive slate of new governors and Congress Critters (Rubio, Johnson, Toomey, Haley, Kasich, West) give me new hope for the Republicans.
Instead, Obama has expanded his wars in that region, with absolutely no hope for success (the Afghan “policy” is a joke even by the low standards set by this clown car administration).
Voting Democratic to end a pointless expensive mismanaged war is a mistake I will never make again.
The New Deal *caused* the Great Depression. It *worked* to increase unemployment, business failure, misery and economic decline by continuing Hoover’s policies of high taxes, regulation and government intervention into the economy under the mythology of “stimulating” it by government ukase. Read The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes.
Ok, I had respect for your posts, until this one. Arguing that “the New Deal caused the Great Depression” is akin arguing that “root canals cause dental decay and pulp infection”. Kook alert!
stewartm
You cannot “tax your way to prosperity”.
But we historically did. During the period 1947-1973, rightwing and libertarian talking points aside. The Great American prosperity occurred under a tax structure that you and your talk-alikes say would make it an impossibility.
Just like the talking point that “government cannot create wealth” (hmm, what’s that dam doing over there? that bridge? that airport? this internet?) that one is easily refuted.
I don’t know about you, but in my discipline (I work in the sciences) when the data so obviously refutes a hypothesis, it’s time to junk the hypothesis.
stewartm
Still, I believe a system of full employment is best.
While I agree there is a place for “welfare” and disability for those who can’t work, the best anti-poverty program is a decent job.
That’s why I support the idea of a permanent WPA, paying at least the minimum wage with vacation benefits for those without skills, and slightly-below medium wages for those with skills in for doing jobs in their respective professions. You want to include benefits to force private employers to offer equivalent or better benefits.
That way, you always can have a job, you can always be contributing, and you can always make ends meet. And no, it’s not a hand-out as you *are* working and contributing to society. A full employment economy, always.
stewartm
cyvern: The rise of the Tea Party, and the impressive slate of new governors and Congress Critters (Rubio, Johnson, Toomey, Haley, Kasich, West) give me new hope for the Republicans.
If you think these will stop the guv’mint gravy train to private corporations and the banksters, think again. Not only do you misapprehend economics, you misapprehend politics. The banksters and the insurance cartel and the war companies who gave so much to the Repugs and to the Tea Party in particular will not see their gravy train stopped. Nor will Tea Party Nation stop it. “Guv’mint spending” is only bad in their eyes when it’s spending that might actually help the bulk of the population, and not spending that extracts money from the many poorer Peters to give to the few rich Pauls. Then it’s “a vitally necessary function of government.”
And–if you’re astute, you may start to ponder *why* these very interests are also so keen in bankrolling and propagandaizing, say, Austrian school economic studies and free-marketeering myths that they have no interest in actually implementing.
Finally–of course, there’s the lack of accountability. We’ve seen two major economic meltdowns in the 1920s and today under what passes for free-market capitalism and yet every time its advocates make excuses and never man up and admit “Gosh, it looks like this system, when left to its own devices,becomes unstable and crashes”. That unfettered capitalism can’t survive without intermittent guv’mint bailouts to patch things up when it crashes the world economy.
-stewartm
“Fraudulent pension schemes”? Seriously? Thos “fraudulent pension schemes” were negotiated in good faith, at least good faith on the part of the union members, maybe not so much good faith on the part of the government management teams.
Most of the pensions were negotiated in lieu of salaries. Public service unions were traditionally underpaid in comparison to those working in industry and the pensions were, even then, not as generous as the (no longer existing for the most part) defined benefit plans in industry.
But it sounds like yo are one of those who believe there is never a need for a union at any level.
So I guess henceforth I will just
S
C
R
O
L
L
stewartm – Yes, of course the New Deal (and related government attacks on business and success generally) caused the Depression. Why do you think it lasted so long and the economy did not bounce right back as it always had before? The GD ended only with WW2 as FDR stopped his constant attacks on business leaders because he finally needed them to produce to win the war. The economy improved when government stopped attacking private business. Sadly, it took a war to cause this.
If you don’t like the Austrian school or other “right-wing” free-market economists, read Jane Jacobs’s criticism of the TVA in the Economy of Cities. Government bungling monocultures drive out private initiative and dynamism. Again, read about the economic destruction caused by the TVA (documented by Jacobs and others).
As for the Great Prosperity (sic?) of the 50′s and 60′s. I am sure the baby boom and the destruction of the industrial base of Europe had nothing to do with this.
And the GDP growth rate of the post-Reagan generation was even higher, in a far more competitive world.
Your “industrial base” was destroyed by cheap energy and transportation prices, not Reaganomics. Manufacturing unions should support a carbon and gasoline tax to increase transportation costs, but they don’t. Nothing else will bring them back.
“lost ground”
False.
Population, college graduation levels, longevity, GDP, and household income after inflation all rose dramatically during the post-Reagan generation. Why do immigrants (legal and illegal) move to the USA in large numbers? Because we have prosperity and opportunity and wealth. Are you gonna believe the editorial board of the NYT, or your lying eyes looking around?
Look at the size of houses, appliances, cars, tvs etc. in 2010 and 1980. You are telling me America is not wealthier? This is a silly liberal talking point.
The “stagnating median income” numbers often cited ignore that more economically upwardly mobile young people live independently now than in the 1960s. The “median household income” numbers *improved* during the recent recession, as kids moved back home. Kids moving out of the house living by themselves (lowering the “median household income”) is a sign of an expanding and prosperous economy, not a declining one.
How the fuck could the New Deal have “caused the Depression” when it had been going on for four years before FDR was even elected?
The main thing that helped the Depression continue was when FDR bowed to the folks pushing to end the New Deal programs in the ’37 time frame which pushed the started recovery back down as it was not able to get a toe hold due to the austerity measures.
In the 1950′s and 1960′s, cited here as an example of prosperity, municipal unions were illegal. We should return to that model of public employment, to stop the municipal union-Democratic party corruption circle where municipal workers vote in their “bosses” for sweetheart deals.
Municipal workers are paid 2-3 times what their labor would command in the private sector for equivalent jobs due to this corruption circle, so the public only gets back in value 30-50 cents on the dollar for any public service they pay for.
dakine – FDR merely followed the anti-business high-tax big government of Hoover, who hated Wall Street and private business as much as FDR did (he was a mining guy). Hoover instituted the 63% marginal tax surcharge. Hoover started the big-government proto-New Deal policies FDR continued (e.g. Hoover Dam). All you are repeating as “history” is FDR election year soundbites and agitprop from 1932. Hoover and FDR had basically the same philosophy of government, just as Bush2 and Obama have basically the same philosophy of government.
@cyvern 10:40AM – Do you have some proof to back up your assertions you have there? I’ve read extensively on the Great Depression and have never seen anything that resembles the “facts” you are presenting.
In fact, FDR, refused to go along with Hoover policies in ’32 (as he was requested to do) because they were so wrong.
And speaking of “high taxes,” how do explain the consistent strong growth in the US economy during the ’50s when the marginal rate was 90%
Bush pushed through the biggest tax cuts in history in ’01 and ’03 and the economy has been in the tank ever since. Everywhere but your alternative universe.
Government “stimulus” spending is destroying jobs, just like the TVA did back in the 1930s.
You see the one job the government “creates” by spending money for that job. You do not see the three jobs the government destroys, by taking money from elsewhere in the economy.
The “data” refutes the idea that maxing out the government credit card with “stimulus spending” creates jobs. Data you can see around you every day.
Wealth is created by saving and spending less than you earn, not by borrowing and spending more than you earn.
The best thing Obama can do for a US economic recovery is cut the salary of every government employee by 20%. Even FDR did this.
cyvern at 10:33
Bullshit. While there are areas of the south where municipal unions are not allowed, they were around in most parts of the country in the larger cities and states during the ’50s and ’60s.
Read Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man, for starters, as well as Jane Jacobs’ The Economy of Cities.
FDR rejected the Hoover tax-tariffs, but in other respects simply extended the statist anti-Wall Street anti-business policies of Hoover that caused the GD.
FDR continued Hoover’s policies like Obama continued Bush2 policies.
The Tea Party represents a resurgence of the Goldwater-Reagan wing of the Republican party and the rejection of the Nixon-Bush wing, and thus is a very positive movement, rejecting the Big Government corruption agenda of both parties. Nixon is arguably to the left economically of Obama.
Again, remember I voted for both Kerry and Obama because I wanted out of Iraq, and I wanted the government out of our bedrooms. Obama has given us nothing on DADT, abortion rights, and has increased our boondoggle in Iraq and Afganistan.
Kennedy allowed federal workers to unionize, which was previously illegal. Both Fiorella Laguardia in NYC and FDR – no right-wing Austrian crazies – at the federal level opposed this, for obvious reasons of corruption and conflict of interest for a monopoly provider by law.
Brown in California and (Republican) Lindsey in NYC, authorized municipal workers to unionize, following Kennedy on the federal level, leading to the current municipal corruption circle where the pubic gets about 30 cents of services for every dollar they pay.
Again, Google is your friend. Everything I have said – Hoover starting the 63% marginal tax, Kennedy authorizing federal unions that even FDR opposed on good government grounds, etc. etc. can be fact checked.
Given that Wall St creates absolutely nothing of value and has been instrumental in causing both the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession of the 2000s, claiming that something is anti Wall St is pretty much of a positive, even when it is not true.
Since Bush and Obama have both bent over backward to give Wall St everything they’ve wanted. They (Wall St) have pushed hard to have the risk socialized and the profits privatized.
Given businesses complete inabilities to regulate themselves in any way shape or form (poisoning the air, ground, food, water, medicine etc). All the recalls for medicines that are either contaminated or creating more problems than they “solve.” Poisoned food supplies. I know I repeat myself but business needs to be controlled unless you enjoy living in an environment where greed rules everything which it sure sounds like you do.
And for the record, Amity Shlaes does not quite qualify as an economic historian. More along the lines of Jonah Goldberg and his “liberal Fascism” in her attempts to re-write history
When you come to FDL and make claims, it is incumbent upon YOU as the claimant to provide the proof.
That has been the standard here for years. I’m not going to do your work for you.
That is, show your work
stewartm – Yes, of course the New Deal (and related government attacks on business and success generally) caused the Depression.
Again–that’s like arguing that root canals causes pulp infection. Or that chemotherapy causes cancer. Or that antibiotics cause pneumonia.
When historically, you have a timeline that looks like:
Great Depression —> New Deal
When something precedes something else, the former can’t be a consequence of the latter. Not unless you’ve pulled quite a trick with entropy.
Why do you think it lasted so long and the economy did not bounce right back as it always had before?
Because economies don’t just “bounce back as [they] always do before”?? Economies can tank and indeed cause a cultural collapse. (Another frustration I have with “free-market” economists–they have no larger perspective of anthropology or history).
Why, for just one instance, did not say the economy of Mycenaean Greece not just “bounce back like it had always done before?” Most of the great cultural collapses in world history are at their root economic collapses (often triggered by environmental and/or weather factors). The governments of that era, while admittedly hardly libertarian, lacked the power to the economic lives of their citizens to the degree a modern state government has–for one thing among others, they lacked the power to just create money by fiat. So you can’t lay such collapses on “government over-control” or “government intervention” because those governments didn’t have that kind of power.
The GD ended only with WW2 as FDR stopped his constant attacks on business leaders because he finally needed them to produce to win the war. The economy improved when government stopped attacking private business. Sadly, it took a war to cause this.
The GD was over before WWII started–unemployment was effectively just 1 % with an inflation rate of just 2 %.
Of course, WWII itself ended it for good, but that was because it created an even greater demand for labor (as well as drying up the supply by the needs of the armed forces). That was because all that hiring by the armaments industry [cough] raised aggregate demand [cough], so much so that wage-price controls were instituted in order to keep inflation at bay.
If you don’t like the Austrian school or other “right-wing” free-market economists, read Jane Jacobs’s criticism of the TVA in the Economy of Cities.
As someone who currently lives in an area developed by TVA, and has done so for 30 years, I can tell you that Jane Jacobs probably never visited here or talked to any of the inhabitants. TVA provided a much-needed boom for this region.
And the GDP growth rate of the post-Reagan generation was even higher, in a far more competitive world.
? Real GDP growth rate under Reagan, 1981-1989: 2.8 %.
GDP growth rate under those awful oppressive 90 % taxes on the rich: 3.8 %
And–I remind you, Reagan fudged the books, by recalculating the way inflation gets calculated, which had the effect of considerably lowering the rate. Without that calculation, Reagan’s real GDP growth rate is even lower. Moreover, during Reagan’s “boom” wage income declined–average hourly earnings fell from their 1979 figure of $18.76 (2008 dollars) to less than $17 an hour during the Reagan era. Contrast that with the era of the ungodly oppressive 90 % upper tax rate, where median household incomes surged 55 %.
Your “industrial base” was destroyed by cheap energy and transportation prices, not Reaganomics.
It was destroyed by Reaganomics–low taxes on the rich meant that these could reward themselves more from corporate kitties without worrying about the tax man, whereas union-busting and deregulation and the lack of enforcement on wage laws depressed wages. With aggregate demand only being kept increasingly afloat by most people taking on debt to buy the things their fathers had been able to pay with cash, corporate America found it less profitable to invest in the “real economy” which produces real goods and delivers real services and found it more profitable to “invest” in the speculative paper Wall Street casino-economy. That is the story of how America de-industrialized, and part of the cure is to reverse the process.
stewartm
Population, college graduation levels, longevity, GDP, and household income after inflation all rose dramatically during the post-Reagan generation.
Already address. Wage income has declined since its 1973 peak, not merely stagnated. As for college education, that does not equal prosperity or good jobs, as any number of people today living in real world can attest.
I note you want to mention “household income” rather than wage income, as “household income” includes increasingly two people having to work to make the money previously provided by *one*.
stewartm
The “data” refutes the idea that maxing out the government credit card with “stimulus spending” creates jobs. Data you can see around you every day.
Since *most* economists give the current stimulus–however puny, ill-crafted, and inadequate it was—some credit in at least (temporarily) preventing the current economy from going over a cliff, then let’s just say yours is a very minority position.
And yes, I have passed those stimulus workers on the highway for a time in my locality each and every morning, watching government create wealth, something you claim is impossible.
stewartm
Wealth is created by saving and spending less than you earn, not by borrowing and spending more than you earn.
Yet you keep citing Reagan and praising Reaganomics, yet Reagan did the above in spades? What puny growth he managed was largely due in fact to military Keynesianism.
Care to explain?
stewartm
This whole thing needs to first take account of Global Banking Cartels. As long as as we buy into debt money, we’ll continue being screwed.
The money was not spent to build roads.
You mean like the highway not 4 miles away from me being repaved using stimulus money was an illusion?
The next time, I’ll ask the guv’mint if they can provide an “illusion” easier on my bicycle tires.
stewartm
Cyvern’s repeating the new conservative talking-point. Here’s a link and an excerpt:
Public employee unions: The GOP’s new whipping boy
State employees are the “new privileged class,” says governor whose last job was cutting taxes for billionaires
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/08/public_employees
At the same time, it’s a pretty gross spectacle, when politicians who’ve spent their whole careers chipping away at the public obligations of the wealthy decide that it’s the state-employed middle-class — teachers, cops, firefighters and nurses — that’s to blame for everything. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels epitomizes the problem, with an are-you-kidding-me quote given to Politico:
We have a new privileged class in America. We used to think of government workers as underpaid public servants. Now they are better paid than the people who pay their salaries. It’s a part of a very large question the nation’s got to face. Who serves whom here? Is the public sector — as some of us have always thought — there to serve the rest of society? Or is it the other way around?
In 2008-2009, the average Indiana teacher made $47,602. To call a teacher making that amount a member of the “new privileged class” takes some chutzpah. Has Daniels not heard any of the news from Wall Street for the last year or so? Or how about that time when his party opposed the stimulus bill almost unanimously, even though it mitigated the budget pain he’s now complaining about? Worst of all, Daniels was the director of the budget office in the first-term Bush White House. That makes him the author of the most unequal tax cuts in modern U.S. history. And he thinks nurses and the people who work at the DMV have lately obtained unfair new privilege?
To some extent, now that the wages and benefits of ordinary private sector employees have been trashed by the conservatives, they are now seeking to do the same on the public sector employees.
stewartm
Wage income since 1973 has increase dramatically (whether household or per person). The “top 1%” makes so much because now the top 20% have a living standard equal to the top 1% from 2 generations ago (standard of medical care, quality of house, education level etc.), and the top 50% have the living standard of the top 10% of the 1970′s.
Your facts are simply wrong, and amount to silly talking points. Open your eyes around you.
The “stagnant median income numbers” (per person or household) ignore 20-somethings living alone, and immigrants moving from 1 dollar a day jobs in the Old Country, and starting the economic migration latter in our prosperous country. Really, immigrants do not flood into countries with stagnant incomes. Read Alan Reynolds Income and Wealth for a critique of what passes for numbers in this debate. College graduation tripled from 10% to 30%, assimilated immigrants by the millions a wonder for the whole world, medical advances other countries cannot replicate, and you are still stuck regurgitating nonsense about stagnating median incomes.
Lower tax rates to restore prosperity as Reagan and Thatcher did, or simply argue about redistributing a shrinking pie.
Your training to certify whether Shlaes is an economic historian or not, is what, exactly, other than that you do not like her conclusions?
Yes, most conservative history and writing is outside academia, since most professors even in economics and history are scared tenured liberals who hate business (which is why they stay cloistered in academia, rather than contributing to the real business world).
By “talking point” you mean “accurate observation” and “agenda action item for the 2012 Republican President.”
Well, the fact that she was an English major with no discernible economics background before she started writing for I think it was Bloomberg. Plus Krugman as a trained economist, actually did manage to respond to and refute her “points” seems to be a fair starting point.
By “talking point” you mean “accurate observation” and “agenda action item for the 2012 Republican President.”
Is there no wage-earning employee, public or private, that conservatives don’t feel should have their wages reduced, their health benefits slashed, and their pensions raided? The reason why public employees are in the bulls’ eye is that you’se guys have already trashed the wages and benefits of private sector employees.
stewartm, just askin’.
Wage income since 1973 has increase dramatically (whether household or per person)
Nope.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Average Wage Earnings in 1982 dollars, converted to 2008 Dollars by CPI-U.
Selected Years:
1964: $17.54
1972: $20.06
1979: $18.76
1993: $16.82
2008: $18.52
Sure looks like a decline to me. Reagan knocked almost $2 an hour off the average wage during what you term a “boom”.
Mind you, these numbers are calculated using Reagan’s and Clinton’s tweaked calculus for inflation, which would make the post-1979 numbers to be higher than a calculation used on the pre-tweaked CPI. I think the tweaks understate inflation still to this day, which makes the track record of Reaganomics even worse than the statistics I’m referencing.
Just drive down the streets of any modest US city. You’ll see something that you didn’t see in the pre-Reagan era–businesses selling money. Yep, selling money–payday loans, auto title loans, you name it. You see, the truth in these statistics is shown by the simple fact that to maintain their standard of living in Reagan’s America, increasing numbers of people had to go into debt to buy the same things their fathers used to be able to buy with cash.
No one does this lightly. The only way for something like this to have happened is that actual wages would have had to decline in real terms, so that people couldn’t even at times make ends meet payday to payday. What I am telling you is not only validated by dry statistics, but in businesses which sprang up as a result of Reaganomics that you can see just by driving down any street.
stewartm
The “stagnant median income numbers” (per person or household) ignore 20-somethings living alone, and immigrants moving from 1 dollar a day jobs
WHAT!? You’re calculating the income increase say, of a Vietnamese girl making $1 a day making Nike shoes who manages to come to the US and makes minimum wage–that said percentage increase in her income alone should count as some huge boost in American wages? That’s some funny math you’re using there. No, as a minimum wage worker her income should count as any other–which means, probably another thumb on the scale downwards.
I’m talking about the decline in US wages. Not in US “household income” or “household expenditures” or any the other metrics conservatives have used to obfuscate the fact that most Americans are losing ground under Reaganomics. (“Household expenditures” is a neat parlor trick, to hide the increasing debt burden that Americans have had to take on to make ends meet). That is clear from the data. Not even mere stagnation–*decline*.
As for the comment about 20-somethings, I don’t think their wages would be anything but lower (as most people make less money, not more, in their 20s), so I can’t imagine that even if they were excluded it wouldn’t do anything but press another thumb on the scale downward. Or is this another case of funny math?
Really, immigrants do not flood into countries with stagnant incomes.
They go to countries with higher incomes, not necessarily growing ones. And besides, if you’ve not been paying attention lately, we’re not being “flooded” with immigrants right now. In fact, right now we’re experiencing a net decline in undocumented immigrants.
medical advances other countries cannot replicate
And what exactly might these be? In fact many of the high-tech procedures and advances were pioneered or invented overseas by countries with what you might call “socialist” health care.
stewartm
Krugman is the proponent of a clearly failed philosophy and jumped the shark 3 years ago. To suggest he “refuted” anything is rather silly.
The stock market crash did not cause the Great Depression. It caused a very minor blip in production.
The GD was caused by government attacks on business as a populist political response. These attacks started with Hoover and continued with FDR. The economy recovered only with WW2, when FDR started to partner with business because he needed the production.
If you cannot accept that the typical American, including large number of youth living independently in their 20′s and 10′s of millions of immigrants added to our economy (who of course start out in low wage low skill jobs and then either they or their children move up the economic ladder), is living better now than 45 years ago, then you really need to take up another hobby than economic statistics. Look at any TV show from the 60′s or 70′s and then compare to what you see with your eyes today. Get your eyes out of the NYTimes editorial page and just look.
And this includes bringing 10′s of millions from around the world from 1 dollar a day to an American standard of living in approximately 2 generations, something no other mature economy has even approached for economic dynamism and progress. There is no stagnating median wage income. There are new jobs being created and upward mobility (why else would immigrants flock here?) There is economic dynamism unmatched anywhere else in world history for a mature economy.
Again, if you cannot accept that the typical American is better educated, better fed, better housed, lives longer and enjoys a higher standard of living in almost every respect than 45 years ago, then I must conclude you are pushing agitprop, not economic analysis.
Why this growth has occurred (technology?, low taxes and deregulation?, education?) is a matter of legitimate debate and analysis. But to deny the basic data is silly.
The “top 1%” makes so much because now the top 20% have a living standard equal to the top 1% from 2 generations ago (standard of medical care, quality of house, education level etc.), and the top 50% have the living standard of the top 10% of the 1970′s.
I hate to say this but–on what planet do you live?
I mean, I work at a reasonably well-paying job. My employer is highly profitable, “high tech” (well, reasonably so) company. And yet, if you were to go to ask anyone with whom I work, about what has happened to their wages, their health care, their retirement benefits, and their overall income–and you’d get an almost unanimous answer: “It’s declined”. On all facets of employee compensation. (The reason why it wouldn’t be totally unanimous is for the rare exception of the very rapidly-promoted, very highly paid, employee–they might be better off than before).
But for most of my fellow employees, their compensation at best stagnated in good years, and then took “hits” in bad ones. The “hits” were never made up in good years either. So it’s a net real decline. The old-timers who remembered the 1960s and 1970s used to be able to take their company bonuses and buy new cars with them–and that was *hourly employees*, mind you, not white-collar or managerial. Now they’re lucking to have enough to buy a large flat-screen TV.
This, mind you, is a “good” job. I’m one of the luckier people in the US. I have far better health care insurance than most Americans. The result of my promotions means that my income has at least stagnated. When I look at people below the scale than myself, I see not only real decline in wages and benefits, but not uncommonly absolute decline –and that was sometimes even before the latest economic calamity.
I lived through Reagan. I was working low-wages then, before my current job, and immediately felt the adverse impact of his policies on my life. I escaped that personally, but have then witnessed the further corrosion of working peoples’ lives, brought on by the continuance of Reaganomics, the corrosion working its way up the income ladder bit by bit until today it’s ravaging the middle class.
Anyone who maintains that Americans are living a life better than ever before is living in fantasy land. They do not live in the real world. There has been a cottage industry created by conservatives, who like Squealer in Animal Farm tries to convince using manipulated half-truths (like “household expenditures” or “household income”) Americans that despite their ever-diminishing real paychecks and slashed benefits that they’ve never had it better. Conservatives try to keep telling people who get maybe $1200 dollars for their company bonus that they have it better than their fathers, who could buy new cars with theirs. And the lies are beginning to wear a little around the edges.
And you’re telling me to “open my eyes”??
stewartm
Reply to cyvern’s
If you cannot accept that the typical American…
Good grief, you have so depleted your specious arguments that you shelved sanity and think HuggyBear is a funds manager!
This deserves to be starved of oxygen.
“No, as a minimum wage worker her income should count as any other–which means, probably another thumb on the scale downwards.”
Yes, of course. Which is why “American” wages are not stagnating, despite your idiotic statistical charts and columns. This lower-than-average income position for the Vietnamese immigrant is not a sign of “stagnating” or “declining” wages, but of incredible dynamism and upward economic mobility. It is not a capitalistic attack on a worker’s living standard, but a capitalist improvement of them. When her son becomes a scientist or doctor or lawyer, this is not the “top 1%” taking money from the rest of us because of Reagan’s tax cuts, it is upward mobility and earned prosperity as this family tries to chase the American Dream.
America is growing in population unlike almost any other large mature economy (look at Greece, Italy, Japan, Germany). Temporarily lower immigrant wages are not signs of hourly wage stagnation, but of growth in our overall economy.
I believe cyvern correctly spelled is “wyvern.”
If you cannot accept that the typical American, including large number of youth living independently in their 20′s and 10′s of millions of immigrants added to our economy (who of course start out in low wage low skill jobs and then either they or their children move up the economic ladder)
Are you trying obscure the decline in real American wages by somehow factoring upward the current low wages of all the people you list above (people in their 20s, etc), tweaking it to some future, higher-wage, number to make the decline go away?
Of course–what makes you think that their incomes will go up, particularly when those of so many more who should be making the good money are seeing their wages going down? I can start naming off names of just the people I know who have lost jobs and who are working at jobs paying half of what they used to make–with no good prospects of ever regaining that income.
Of course–all the people you cite are contributing to today’s economy. They’ll just will never get properly paid for their contributions, unlike people 20 or 30 years before, given the trajectory of Reaganomics. They won’t until we change the country’s economic policies to what they used to be, policies that pushed wealth downward.
stewartm
Yes, of course. Which is why “American” wages are not stagnating, despite your idiotic statistical charts and columns.
So the BLS is “idiotic”.
If most people today–most people in the higher-earning portions of their lives, their 40s and 50s, mind you–are seeing their real incomes at best stagnate, and at worst, decline–what makes you think that your 20-somethings and immigrants will experience such a great improvement? That does not compute.
stewartm
Cyvern is a video game from the early 1990′s. I believe it is short for “cybernetic wyvern” as the main shooter is a robot dragon.
Thanks for playing.
If you cannot accept that the typical American (including the absorption of 60-odd million immigrants) is better off than 45 years ago, then this debate is silly.
Question: do the posters on here really believe the “stagnating wage” argument, or is this simply a piece of mud to throw during an election season?
Again, the data overwhelmingly disproves the stagnation thesis, as does any simply look at a TV show from the 1960s, so I am now curious if the posters here believe it.
“Again, the data overwhelmingly disproves the stagnation thesis, ”
What data?
I am not “obscuring” anything. There has been no decline in US wages or living standard in the last 45 years. There has been tremendous improvement and growth by almost all measures (education, longevity, population, house size), staggering growth for a mature economy suffering the ravages of Keynesian stagflation in the 1970′s.
My controversial claim is not that there has been this amazing growth, but that Reaganite tax cuts and deregulation caused it (as did Thatcher’s similar moves in Britain), rather than other factors.
I can understand you debating Reaganism, but to deny the basic GDP growth data is just silly.
Your BLS statistics are just wrong, to the point of stupidity. If you add 60 million low-wage but upwardly mobile immigrants to the economic pie, you may temporarily get a lower median hourly number, but the picture is still of upwardly mobile growth and improvement.
The GD was caused by government attacks on business as a populist political response
Populist response?
How many people, cyvern, do you would think would have cared a whit about the Great Stock Market Crash–not unless it indeed at least heralded a collapse in the overall economy? (The beginning of the GD actually predated the crash by two months).
Unemployment rates for those years have to be estimated, but by 1930 it was approaching 10 %, then 16 % in 1931, then 25 % in 1932. I think it was people losing their jobs rather than the Wall Street tumble that got people’s attention. Moreover, Hoover’s very pro-business response was to try to cooperate with businesses to urge them not to slash their workforces.
Guess what? It didn’t work.
stewartm
Early 1990s.
Might then I inquire about your age? (Rough answer range will be acceptable).
stewartm
Stagnant Wages Myth: http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/11/lets-kill-the-s.html
Did he correct it to just include ONLY the middle and working class wages?
According to the Economist (an establishment publication, hardly Austrian) wages for the *bottom* 10% increased about 30% over the last 30 years, about 1 percent a year after inflation.
This corresponds to what we see visually, which is that even the lowest paid are doing substantially better (one third better in real terms) over the last 2 generations.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/inequality_myth
Of course, wages for the top 30% who are college educated and part of Richard Florida’s “creative class” are doing even better in a globalized information and knowledge economy, but then a rising tide lifts all boats.
Question: do the posters on here really believe the “stagnating wage” argument, or is this simply a piece of mud to throw during an election season?
As I said–I work at a profitable company, reasonably “high tech”, not a rust belt old-tech company by any means, this is what has happened to the average bonus payout in the time period in question to use one striking example:
1960s-1970s–bonus ranged from $2000 to $5000 for hourly employees in nearly every year.
That amount was enough to meet the down-payment on most homes, and to buy lower-priced automobiles of the time.
Typical payout today for hourly employees: $1000-$1500.
This is despite the fact that my company has twice posted record profits this past decade.
For us to just to merely “stagnating”, that same bonus payout would have had to be in the $8000-$16000 range today, to be able to buy the same things it could back then. It obviously has not. For we to have indeed prospered, that bonus would have had to be bigger, or our pay much bigger.
Yet in many years during the past decade we didn’t get any raises, and the years we did it was less than the inflation rate–even true in a year when the company posted record profits.
Your argument, if I may put it, is to tell people that the emperor really is wearing a mighty fine new set of clothes and they shouldn’t believe their own lying eyes (or their paychecks, or their benefit plan booklets). That is it in a real-life nutshell.
And this little bit of anecdotal evidence explains much. Repeat it again and again throughout the whole economy, and you’ll see why auto loans went from 3- and 4-years up to 6. Why the down payment requirement for homes was lifted and mortgage insurance was added. Why you see payday loans and auto title loan sharks springing up in town. Accepting the fact that American’s real income went down under Reaganomics explains all of this, and much much more.
stewartm
stewart: Yes, the BLS numbers are partisan nonsense. Median real living standards in the US are up about 50% over the last 30 or so years by any reasonable measure.
Here’s my off-the-top rebuttal to this Heritage Foundation bit (yes, that’s its origin)–looking at “all compensation” conflates wages with health care benefits. Health care inflation under our for-profit health care system has skyrocketed, and this has meant that one’s health care benefits, even when they are slashed to the point where they provide objectively poorer health care coverage, end up eating up the money for wages to keep up.
stewartm
You guys are still bothering with cyber wyvern? Why?
Remember, the right’s favorite thing to do is piss off liberals.
Starve the beast.
Cars today have many more features than 40 years ago, so of course they cost more.
Excess real estate inflation can be cured by eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction.
Health insurance from an employer should also be taxed as income.
Now the Economist is trying to claim that poorer people are making up their loss in real income because they can, after all, buy cheap shit at Big Lots.
Is that about it?
Like I said, there’s a whole cottage industry, advocated loudest by the Right, at work here trying to tell people that they shouldn’t believe their own lying eyes.
stewartm
But so many of his talking points I’ve read elsewhere! ;-)
stewartm
Kelly – In short, you have no replies to my arguments. I recognize that this is a site hostile to my views, but I wanted to see what people would say.
I have not personally insulted any person here, nor, I will acknowledge, as anyone personally insulted me. The exchange has been relatively fact and reason based, in an age where people rarely talk to those who disagree with themselves.
stewartm,
there’s a whole cottage industry, advocated loudest by the Right, at work here trying to tell people that they shouldn’t believe their own lying eyes.
Like timing from the Gawds, check out Ruth’s post from earlier.Show Them The Money; WaPo Writer Blames Public for Unemployment
Cars today have many more features than 40 years ago, so of course they cost more.
So did the cars back before the 1960s and 1970s similarly show improvement over their predecessors of the 1940s. The thing was, the people in the 1960s and 1970s made enough money to buy those new, improved, cars, with one lump sump. Not so their children.
In that either case, no, their wages did not keep up.
stewartm
By “talking points” you mean “decisive set of facts and arguments”. :)
And I posted there too, if you noticed. The same context–”blood from stones”, by a ruling class that has no idea what everyone else is going through, that they’ve been squeezed dry.
stewartm
“beast”
Ok, well, mostly free of personal insults directed at me. :)
Health care costs have risen because of the government programs of Medicare and Medicaid. So Johnson’s War on Poverty probably increases poverty. Surprise, when the government writes open ended checks for things, their price rises rather than falls.
Free-market reforms that lower costs is the right solution for health care, not government rationing or bloated spending. I pray and hope you don’t get a rare cancer or need a hip replacement when 80 in a government run-health care system.
But that doesn’t mean wages haven’t stagnated for all but the upper class – it just means that the effect has (fortunately) been attenuated in terms of standard of living by technology.
cyvern, you kind of did a “bait and switch” with the wage “myth”. You posted a link that didn’t correct for the plutonomy, and then changed your argument to “standard of living” instead of “wages”.
Not cool.
athena – Your reply makes no sense. Real wage is what you can buy with the dollars you are paid. If stuff is cheaper then your real wage is up even if the nominal number is the same. Standard of living is, after all, the point of a wage.
athena – But real wages is measured in nothing but the standard of living they buy. Real wages = standard of living.
And median real wages (= standard of living) have grown over the last 45 years, by about 50%. I grant that the top 30% of college-educated knowledge professionals have done even better than that in a globalized information economy, but not by taking from others but by growing the pie. Apple computer didn’t exist 45 years ago. The Ipad added to the pie. It did not cause Detroit to go bankrupt.
What is “plutonomy”? Is that some fancy word for “inequality”?
Ronald Reagan was the worst president ever; biggest deficit post WWII, selling weapons to Iran, the list goes on.
I think the “median wage stagnation” argument only corrects against inflation. So it’s solid in and of itself.
Don’t give in, Kelly. You know what’s happening here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
Ok. Gotcha. FDL buzzword.
Vast wealth in private hands by earned by founding and running companies is a good thing not a bad thing. Andrew Mellon founded the National Gallery. Bill Gates funds vaccine research on a massive scale.
These people created the jobs we so need in this economy. We should encourage more Mellons and Gates, not call them nasty names.
About plutonomy:
http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/files/6674234-citigroup-oct-16-2005-plutonomy-report-part-1.pdf
You might be right about the “real wage” thing. I’ll look into it more later. I’m still on board with doing away with the plutonomy, though.
“Don’t give in”
Does this mean don’t look at arguments and viewpoints different from yours?
No, see my link.
Ruth Calvo is upstairs!
Show Them The Money; WaPo Writer Blames Public for Unemployment
athena – Ok. Thx on “plutonomy” article. I have not read it yet, so I will refrain from comment.
Health care costs have risen because of the government programs of Medicare and Medicaid because of the health care system changing from largely a not-for-profit one to becoming a for-profit one in the 1970s.
Fixed that for you.
The Health Maintenance Organization Act was passed in 1973. That not mean something to you?
stewartm
Another point–as I note this graph talks about “total compensation”, not average—does this therefore include our CEO’s bonuses?
That would explain a lot, too.
stewartm
Real wage is what you can buy with the dollars you are paid.
Duh. And so when your employer slashes your health care benefits, even though that slash still might cost him more, causing him to also slash your wages–that means you’re really getting “paid more”, in conservative-speak, even though you can in reality buy less health care and other stuff with it.
At least be consistent.
stewartm
Actually, even his “the poor can now buy cheap shit at Big Lots and that thus boost their paycheck” argument falls flat.
For one, cheap shit is cheap shit–it often is of inferior quality and doesn’t perform or last as long. Their fathers didn’t have to buy the cheap shit, they could by the real McCoy. To estimate a true cost-of-living comparison, we should compare what it cost to purchase equivalents, not the cost of premium back then vs cheap now.
Secondly, the inflation calculating metric has been tweaked under both Reagan and Clinton to lop a considerable amount off the rate than the way it was previously calculated. So even IMHO the current way of calculating inflation understates the true rate and overstates post-1983 real wages.
Thirdly, as the economy has changed, now there are things which used to be free (like TV reception) which now have become effectively for-pay in order to receive them. We used to be told that frequent commercials were the price we had to pay for free TV reception, now we have to pay for it and still we get commercials. (What’s with that?)
stewartm
Very good points. And healthcare costs as of late have started swallowing everything whole. Lots of people are paying >35% of their income for health insurance.