Friday, October 7, 2016
Robert Rubin on long run growth
Links for 10-07-16 [feedly]
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/10/links-for-10-07-16.html
- Facing up to income inequality - Jeff Sachs
- The New View of Fiscal Policy and Its Application - Jason Furman
- What does GDP per capita tell us about well-being? - OECD Insights
- Where the Economics Nobel Came From - Justin Fox
- What Do We Know About Angel Investors? - Tim Taylor
- Restructuring Debt in the Dark - Hausmann and Walker
- Where Do Children Earn More Degrees? - FRB Cleveland
- The democracy problem - Stumbling and Mumbling
- Robert Frank on Frankness - Robert Waldmann
- The Conclusion Formula - Marc Bellemare
- Little Englanders - mainly macro
- GAO Says Government to Revisit Financial Reform - RegBlog
-- via my feedly newsfeed
What to Watch on Jobs Day: The teacher gap, and how today’s unemployment masks continued weakness in the economy [feedly]
http://www.epi.org/blog/what-to-watch-on-jobs-day-the-teacher-gap-and-how-low-unemployment-masks-continued-weakness-in-the-economy/
-- via my feedly newsfeed
Thursday, October 6, 2016
President Obama Inadvertently Gives High Praise to China in UN Speech [feedly]
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech
Mark Weisbrot
The Hill, September 29, 2016
President Obama's speech at the UN last week was mostly a defense of the world's economic and political status quo, especially that part of it that is led or held in place by the US government and the global institutions that Washington controls or dominates. In doing so, he said some things that were exaggerated or wrong, or somewhat misleading. It is worth looking at some of the things that media reports on this speech missed.
"Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech — which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward."
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the economy. State control over investment, technology transfer, and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to international trade and investment, and rapid privatization of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition, over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role. Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy.
If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period. It was so successful in its economic growth and development — by far the fastest in world history — that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed — although perhaps not as much as Europe has — to the global slowdown since 2011.)
Of course, the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." Some of them are the exact opposite of "open markets," such as the lengthening and strengthening of patent and copyright protection included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. President Obama also made a plug for the TPP in his speech, asserting that "we've worked to reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits [of globalization] are more broadly shared." But the labor and environmental standards in the TPP, as with those in previous US-led commercial agreements, are not enforceable; whereas if a government approves laws or regulations that infringe on the future profit potential of a multinational corporation — even if such laws or regulations are to protect public health or safety — that government can be hit with billions of dollars in fines. And they must pay these fines, or be subject to trade sanctions.
In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is — by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments — headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world.
"We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration," President Obama told the world at the UN General Assembly. "Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."
But the rich country governments led by Washington are not offering the rest of the world any better model of cooperation and integration than the failed model they have been offering for the past 35 years. And that is a big part of the problem. But fortunately, their influence is diminishing.
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and the president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of the new book "Failed: What the 'Experts' Got Wrong About the Global Economy" (2015, Oxford University Press). You can subscribe to his columns here.
-- via my feedly newsfeed
Secrets in Plain View: Obamacare Is Working [feedly]
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/secrets-in-plain-view-obamacare-is-working
Dean Baker
Truthout, October 3, 2016
Most people would consider it pretty bad luck if they had three inches of rain dumped on their city in a 24-hour period. That is, unless they had just missed being hit by a hurricane. That analogy captures how we should feel about Obamacare.
There are still tens of millions of people without health insurance. An even larger number of people have great difficulty covering the deductibles and co-pays required by their insurers. In many cases, even people with insurance go without necessary care because they can't afford these expenses. And we still have jokers like Martin Shkreli and the Mylan EpiPen crew jacking up prices on life-saving medicines. There are plenty of reasons to be angry about the current state of our health care system, but like the city that just missed being nailed by the hurricane, we have to realize that it could be much worse.
This isn't idle speculation. In 2009, President Obama's first year in office, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services projected that health care spending would take up 19.3 percent of GDP in 2016. The most recent projections show health care costing 18.1 percent of GDP this year.
That sounds really nerdy, but the difference between these two projections amounts to more than $220 billion in savings this year. That comes to $690 per person in savings or $2,750 for an average family of four. This is real money to most people.
One reason that the slowing in health care costs is not widely recognized is that most people are not studying the projections. While just about everyone living in a coastal city will know about the forecast of a hurricane strike, few people spend their time studying health care cost projections. This means that when spending slows sharply, as it has in the last seven years, most people don't recognize the slowdown. They just know that health care costs more than it used to. This is the case of people getting hit by three inches of rain and not recognizing that they just missed a hurricane.
The other reason most people may not see the slower cost growth is that they don't pay for most health care directly. The overwhelming majority of people in the country have most of their health care paid for by their insurer or the government. When the insurance companies and the government see savings, the typical family does not directly feel the benefit in their pocketbook.
However that doesn't mean they don't benefit from these savings. For most of the last four decades workers were seeing an ever larger share of their compensation going to cover the cost of their health care insurance. Money that might have otherwise gone to wage increases went instead to pay for their health care plan. The opposite has been the case over the last seven years with the cost of health care and other benefits declining from 13.8 percent of total labor compensation in 2009 to 13.1 percent in 2015.
If spending had continued on its prior path, health care and other benefits would now account for more than 15 percent of compensation. While not all employers passed on these savings, on average workers' paychecks are almost 3 percent higher because of the slowing of health care cost growth.
The other big saver is the government. The federal budget deficit would be almost $200 billion higher in 2016, if health care costs had followed the path projected before the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
This is the good news from Obamacare. Of course the even better news is that the number of uninsured has fallen to a record low. And, we now have clear evidence that this is leading to improvements in health outcomes. States that expanded their Medicaid program, as provided for in the ACA, have seen improvements in health outcomes for low and moderate income people compared to states that did not.
All of this is important background, because the public has to recognize the enormous progress that has been made with the ACA so that the huge problems that remain in our health care system can be fixed. At the moment, most Democrats are scared to talk about the ACA because their focus groups tell them it is unpopular. That means the only people talking about the ACA are Republicans talking about it are death panels and comparing it to slavery.
We have to reduce the amount that people pay out of pocket, end charges for many times of preventative screening and introduce a Medicare-style public option in the health care exchanges. But these and other steps can only take place if politicians who support the ACA feel comfortable talking it. That will only be the case when people recognize the benefits it has brought.
No one should be satisfied with the health care system as "reformed" by the ACA. But it is important that they recognize the progress it has brought and that we can make much more progress by building on its success.
-- via my feedly newsfeed
Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio: Labor Beat on the NEWS Teachers, Acuff!
Social Democracy, the “Third Way,” and the Crisis of Europe, Part 1 [feedly]
http://triplecrisis.com/social-democracy-the-third-way-and-the-crisis-of-europe-part-1/
Historian and economist Alejandro Reuss is co-editor of Triple Crisis blog and Dollars & Sensemagazine. This is the first part of a three-part series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"—a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism—and its role in the shaping of the Economic and Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" (Part 1 and Part 2). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available here.
The idea of a united Europe was not unique to neoliberal politicians or financial capitalists, even if their vision was the one that ended up winning out. Rather, this idea cut across the entire political spectrum, from forces clearly associated with giant capitalist corporations and high finance to those associated with the working-class movement. Just as there have been "anti-Europe" or "euroskeptic" forces on the political left and right, there were also diverse forces in favor of European unification, each with its own vision of what a united Europe could be.
Going back to the mid-20th century, leaders of the social democratic, reformist left envisioned a future "Social Europe." The European Social Charter, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1961, promulgated a broad vision of "social and economic rights," including objectives like full employment, reduction of work hours, protection of workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively, rights to social security and medical assistance, protection of the rights of migrants, and so on.
Figures on the revolutionary left, like the Belgian Marxist economist and Trotskyist leader Ernest Mandel, advocated a "United Socialist States of Europe." This was an expression not only of revolutionary internationalism, but also of Mandel's view that the working class could no longer confront increasingly internationalized capital through political action confined to the national level.
In other words, the question was not just whether Europe would become united, but (if it did) what form such unification would take.
Triumph of the "Modernizers"
The vision of social democracy on a grand scale did not come to pass, nor even was there significant movement in that direction when social democratic parties led the governments of the largest and most powerful countries in the EU. During overlapping periods in the late 1990s, the Labour Party's Tony Blair was prime minister in the U.K., the Socialist Lionel Jospin was prime minister in France (though in "cohabitation" with Conservative president Jacques Chriac), the L'Ulivo (Olive Tree) coalition's Romano Prodi led the government in Italy, and the Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder (leading the so-called "Red-Green" coalition, with the Green Party as junior partner) was the chancellor of Germany.
All of these governments were led by figures who had turned away from the traditional social-democratic politics of class struggle (in even the moderated form prevalent in the postwar period), while still promising to temper neoliberal capitalism. This approach became known as the "Third Way," a term especially associated with the "New Labour" program of Blair in the U.K., but also used to describe similar shifts in other countries. As Swedish political scientist Peo Hansen puts it, Blair expressed "unconditional espousal of capitalist globalization and … further liberalization of labour markets." Jospin, who campaigned as a critic of neoliberalism, quickly shifted to "multiple privatization schemes and policy reshufflings favourable to business." Prodi was "firmly in the camp of the 'modernisers'."
The case of Germany is especially instructive: The finance minister in the Social Democratic-Green coalition government, Oskar Lafontaine, was notable for swimming against the neoliberal tide—criticizing the EU's fiscal constraints and inflation-targeting monetary policy, and proposing the adoption of common tax and social welfare policies. That is, he was arguing for EU-wide social democratic reforms to end "race to the bottom" dynamics (on wages, taxes, etc.) emerging in the EU. "Wage dumping, tax dumping and welfare dumping," Lafontaine declared, "are not our [social democrats'] response to the globalization of markets!" That was too much for Schroeder and other social democratic leaders in Europe, and Lafontaine resigned under pressure in 1999.
Lafontaine would later become a founder and leader of Die Linke (The Left), which is certainly to the left of the Social Democrats. He was not, however, a revolutionary who threatened to upset the reformist apple cart. Rather, argues Hansen, Lafontaine was a "political liability among his own for merely sticking with a set of very traditional social democratic policies and values."
Triple Crisis welcomes your comments. Please share your thoughts below.
-- via my feedly newsfeed
West Virginia GDP -- a Streamlit Version
A survey of West Virginia GDP by industrial sectors for 2022, with commentary This is content on the main page.
-
John Case has sent you a link to a blog: Blog: Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio Post: Are You Crazy? Reall...
-
---- Mylan's EpiPen profit was 60% higher than what the CEO told Congress // L.A. Times - Business Lawmakers were skeptical last...
-
via Bloomberg -- excerpted from "Balance of Power" email from David Westin. Welcome to Balance of Power, bringing you the late...
