Sunday, July 9, 2017

Re: [socialist-econ] Dani Rodrik:The G20’s Misguided Globalism

Very interesting article.  Of course, Rodrik takes the Case position that trade policy must be accompanied by strong domestic policy that "pays the losers" and ensures broad participation in the benefits of trade.

On Jul 8, 2017 11:27 AM, "John Case" <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:
The G20's Misguided Globalism

Dani Rodrik

HAMBURG – This year's G20 summit in Hamburg promises to be among the more interesting in recent years. For one thing, US President Donald Trump, who treats multilateralism and international cooperation with cherished disdain, will be attending for the first time.

Trump comes to Hamburg having already walked out of one of the key commitments from last year's summit – to join the Paris climate agreement "as soon as possible." And he will not have much enthusiasm for these meetings' habitual exhortation to foreswear protectionism or provide greater assistance to refugees.

Moreover, the Hamburg summit follows two G20 annual meetings in authoritarian countries – Turkey in 2015 and China in 2016 – where protests could be stifled. This year's summit promises to be an occasion for raucous street demonstrations, directed against not only Trump, but also Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russia's Vladimir Putin.

The G20 has its origins in two ideas, one relevant and important, the other false and distracting. The relevant and important idea is that developing and emerging market economies such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and China have become too significant to be excluded from discussions about global governance. While the G7 has not been replaced – its last summit was held in May in Sicily – G20 meetings are an occasion to expand and broaden the dialogue.

The G20 was created in 1999, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis. Developed countries initially treated it as an outreach forum, where they would help developing economies raise financial and monetary management to the developed world's standards. Over time, developing countries found their own voice and have played a larger role in crafting the group's agenda. In any case, the 2008 global financial crisis emanating from the United States, and the subsequent eurozone debacle, made a mockery of the idea that developed countries had much useful knowledge to impart on these matters.

The second, less useful idea underpinning the G20 is that solving the pressing problems of the world economy requires ever more intense cooperation and coordination at the global level. The analogy frequently invoked is that the world economy is a "global commons": either all countries do their share to contribute to its upkeep, or they will all suffer the consequences.

This rings true and certainly applies to some areas. Addressing climate change, to take a key problem, does indeed require collective action. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions is a true global public good, because every country, left to its own devices, would rather free ride on others' cuts while doing very little at home.

Similarly, infectious diseases that travel across borders require global investments in early-warning systems, monitoring, and prevention. Here, too, individual countries have little incentive to contribute to those investments and every incentive for free riding on others' contributions.

It is a small step from such arguments to consider the G20's bread-and-butter economic issues – financial stability, macroeconomic management, trade policies, structural reform – in the same vein. But the global-commons logic largely breaks down with such economic problems.

Consider the topic that will be on all G20 leaders' minds in Hamburg (except for Trump's, of course): the threat of rising trade protectionism. A new report from Global Trade Alert warns that the G20 has failed to live up to its previous pledges on this issue. So far, Trump's bark has been worse than his bite on trade. Nonetheless, the report argues, the thousands of protectionist measures that still impede US exports in other countries may well give Trump the excuse he needs to increase barriers of his own.

Yet the failure to maintain open trade policies is not really a failure of global cooperation or a result of insufficient global spirit. It is essentially a failure of domestic policy.

When we economists teach the principle of comparative advantage and the gains from trade, we explain that free trade expands the home country's economic pie. We trade not to confer benefits on other countries, but to enhance our own citizens' economic opportunities. Responding to other countries' protectionism by erecting barriers of our own amounts to shooting ourselves in the foot.

True, trade agreements have not brought benefits to a large number of Americans; many workers and communities have been hurt. But the skewed and unbalanced trade deals that produced these results were not imposed on the US by other countries. They were what powerful US corporate and financial interests – the same ones that support Trump – demanded and managed to obtain. The failure to compensate the losers was not the result of inadequate global cooperation, either; it was a deliberate domestic policy choice.

The same goes for financial regulation, macroeconomic stability or growth-promoting structural reforms. When governments misbehave in these areas, they may produce adverse spillovers for other countries. But it is their own citizens who pay the greatest price. Exhortations at G20 summits will not fix any of these problems. If we want to avoid misguided protectionism, or to benefit from better economic management in general, we need to start by putting our own national houses in order.


The reality, as a latter-day Caesar might put it, is that the fault is not in our trade partners, but in ourselves.Worse still, the knee-jerk globalism that suffuses G20 meetings feeds into the populists' narrative. It provides justification for Trump and like-minded leaders to deflect attention from their own policies and lay the blame on others. It is because other countries break the rules and take advantage of us, they can say, that our people suffer. Globalism-as-solution is easily transformed into globalism-as-scapegoat.


--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Socialist Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to socialist-economics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to socialist-economics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/socialist-economics.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/socialist-economics/CADH2id%2Bn13c4vrRUhRa7YVeLC%3D%2BqC7XJBc-XYvDEW5TRKEKN7A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Saturday, July 8, 2017

The resource curse in action

----

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/charts/resource-curse-in-action
----
Shared via my feedly reader

Dani Rodrik:The G20’s Misguided Globalism

The G20's Misguided Globalism

Dani Rodrik

HAMBURG – This year's G20 summit in Hamburg promises to be among the more interesting in recent years. For one thing, US President Donald Trump, who treats multilateralism and international cooperation with cherished disdain, will be attending for the first time.

Trump comes to Hamburg having already walked out of one of the key commitments from last year's summit – to join the Paris climate agreement "as soon as possible." And he will not have much enthusiasm for these meetings' habitual exhortation to foreswear protectionism or provide greater assistance to refugees.

Moreover, the Hamburg summit follows two G20 annual meetings in authoritarian countries – Turkey in 2015 and China in 2016 – where protests could be stifled. This year's summit promises to be an occasion for raucous street demonstrations, directed against not only Trump, but also Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russia's Vladimir Putin.

The G20 has its origins in two ideas, one relevant and important, the other false and distracting. The relevant and important idea is that developing and emerging market economies such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and China have become too significant to be excluded from discussions about global governance. While the G7 has not been replaced – its last summit was held in May in Sicily – G20 meetings are an occasion to expand and broaden the dialogue.

The G20 was created in 1999, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis. Developed countries initially treated it as an outreach forum, where they would help developing economies raise financial and monetary management to the developed world's standards. Over time, developing countries found their own voice and have played a larger role in crafting the group's agenda. In any case, the 2008 global financial crisis emanating from the United States, and the subsequent eurozone debacle, made a mockery of the idea that developed countries had much useful knowledge to impart on these matters.

The second, less useful idea underpinning the G20 is that solving the pressing problems of the world economy requires ever more intense cooperation and coordination at the global level. The analogy frequently invoked is that the world economy is a "global commons": either all countries do their share to contribute to its upkeep, or they will all suffer the consequences.

This rings true and certainly applies to some areas. Addressing climate change, to take a key problem, does indeed require collective action. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions is a true global public good, because every country, left to its own devices, would rather free ride on others' cuts while doing very little at home.

Similarly, infectious diseases that travel across borders require global investments in early-warning systems, monitoring, and prevention. Here, too, individual countries have little incentive to contribute to those investments and every incentive for free riding on others' contributions.

It is a small step from such arguments to consider the G20's bread-and-butter economic issues – financial stability, macroeconomic management, trade policies, structural reform – in the same vein. But the global-commons logic largely breaks down with such economic problems.

Consider the topic that will be on all G20 leaders' minds in Hamburg (except for Trump's, of course): the threat of rising trade protectionism. A new report from Global Trade Alert warns that the G20 has failed to live up to its previous pledges on this issue. So far, Trump's bark has been worse than his bite on trade. Nonetheless, the report argues, the thousands of protectionist measures that still impede US exports in other countries may well give Trump the excuse he needs to increase barriers of his own.

Yet the failure to maintain open trade policies is not really a failure of global cooperation or a result of insufficient global spirit. It is essentially a failure of domestic policy.

When we economists teach the principle of comparative advantage and the gains from trade, we explain that free trade expands the home country's economic pie. We trade not to confer benefits on other countries, but to enhance our own citizens' economic opportunities. Responding to other countries' protectionism by erecting barriers of our own amounts to shooting ourselves in the foot.

True, trade agreements have not brought benefits to a large number of Americans; many workers and communities have been hurt. But the skewed and unbalanced trade deals that produced these results were not imposed on the US by other countries. They were what powerful US corporate and financial interests – the same ones that support Trump – demanded and managed to obtain. The failure to compensate the losers was not the result of inadequate global cooperation, either; it was a deliberate domestic policy choice.

The same goes for financial regulation, macroeconomic stability or growth-promoting structural reforms. When governments misbehave in these areas, they may produce adverse spillovers for other countries. But it is their own citizens who pay the greatest price. Exhortations at G20 summits will not fix any of these problems. If we want to avoid misguided protectionism, or to benefit from better economic management in general, we need to start by putting our own national houses in order.


The reality, as a latter-day Caesar might put it, is that the fault is not in our trade partners, but in ourselves.Worse still, the knee-jerk globalism that suffuses G20 meetings feeds into the populists' narrative. It provides justification for Trump and like-minded leaders to deflect attention from their own policies and lay the blame on others. It is because other countries break the rules and take advantage of us, they can say, that our people suffer. Globalism-as-solution is easily transformed into globalism-as-scapegoat.


--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Friday, July 7, 2017

Ben Bernanke Interview



----
Ben Bernanke Interview // Economist's View
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2017/06/ben-bernanke-interview.html

One part of a long interview of Ben Bernanke:

... Jim Tankersley: But you don't think, particularly in those first moments of the crisis when Fed officials and Treasury officials were trying to work together to stop the bleeding, there weren't more things that could have been done for homeowners, for folks who were just those underwater people that you mentioned in the very beginning of your answer.

Ben Bernanke: Again, I focused first on what the Fed could do. The Fed has a certain set of tools. We were successful in stabilizing the financial system after the crisis. We were successful in getting the economy back on a recovery track, as we've seen. Now the specific example you give is homeowners — that was the responsibility of the Treasury, although we were very interested in that at the Fed; we had many conversations with the Treasury about what they were doing.

I think the Treasury made a pretty serious effort on that front. There was money appropriated under the TARP to help homeowners, and the Treasury set up programs both to help people refinance their mortgages and to modify or restructure troubled mortgages. And some millions of people were helped by those programs.

My perceptions of that effort, though, speaking from someone who was outside of that policy effort, was that there were two big sets of constraints. One was that it's just a lot harder than you think to, for example, to modify or restructure mortgages when the borrower is possibly unemployed, possibly not interested in talking to the bank or participating in a program. It was awfully difficult as a practical manner to manage the restructuring programs.

But the other part was that, people don't remember this necessarily, it was actually very politically unpopular to help troubled homeowners. And Congress put lots of restrictions on what could be done, and tried to make sure there wasn't any significant subsidy, for example. So within the inherent logistical difficulties, which were substantial, and the political constraints from Congress, the Treasury was hampered, I think, in its efforts. It did make, I think, a good-faith effort, and it did help millions of people.

Again, whether a bigger effort would've had more effect on the recovery, I'm not sure that it was a first-order issue. It certainly would've helped a lot of individual people, a lot of families. From the political point of view, it cuts both ways. The story is that the Tea Party was triggered not by anger necessarily at the financial players, but at the idea that the government would be helping people who had "overborrowed" or been irresponsible in taking out mortgages. ...


----

Read in my feedly.com

The black unemployment rate returns to historic low, but not really



----
The black unemployment rate returns to historic low, but not really // Economic Policy Institute Blog
http://www.epi.org/blog/the-black-unemployment-rate-returns-to-historic-low-but-not-really/

Today's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the economy added 222,000 jobs in June. If this rate of growth keeps up, we should see the economy heading faster toward full employment over the next year. Meanwhile, the overall unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 4.4 percent. This slight increase happened for the "right" reasons as the labor force participation rate rose slightly to 62.8 percent percentage points and the employment-to-population ratio also rose slightly to 60.1 percentage points. As the economy continues to inch towards full employment, we should expect the recovery to reach all corners of the where workers including young and old, and workers of all races can fully benefit from the economy.

One particularly bright finding in today's report is the noticeable drop in the black unemployment rate. While the unemployment rate for black workers remains far higher than for white workers (7.1 percent versus 3.8 percent), the black unemployment rate has been falling faster than overall unemployment over the last year. It's important to not put too much attention on one month's data because it can be misleading as the black unemployment rate displays a fair amount of measurement-driven volatility. Looking at the longer term trends, black unemployment has fallen 1.5 percentage points over the last year, compared to a 0.5 percentage point drop overall. Previous estimates indicate that the black unemployment rate tends to be more volatile with respect to aggregate labor market changes than the white rate. Still, this improvement is quite a bit stronger than the historical average of roughly a 2 percentage point change in the black unemployment rate for every 1 percentage point change in the overall rate.

Read more


----

Read in my feedly.com

The G20: A Clash Of Civilisations? [feedly]

The G20: A Clash Of Civilisations?
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/06/07/2017/g20-clash-civilisations

The G20: A Clash Of Civilisations?

GLI – G20 Hamburg Summit - 6th July 2017
The G20: A Clash Of Civilisations?

The following piece was written by members of the GLI team at the G20 Hamburg Summit. Please check here regularly for all thier blogs and opinion papers from the summit.

International Media Centre – G20 Hamburg Summit. The logistical organisation of the G20 Summit in Hamburg has been conducted in a polished manner, even in the face of thousands of protesters. A sign perhaps of Germany's experience of hosting another major summit just two years previously, but also the importance the German Chancellor places on the format of the G20 as a place to provide solutions to global issues and the ensuing need for an efficient operation.

However, it seems that the one thing that no manner of planning can compensate for is the current President of the United States of America. Already known for his twitter rampages, and the entirely unprofessional manner in which he conducts his office, Donald Trump has managed to excel even himself in antagonising fellow G20 leaders only hours before the summit begins. During a press conference in Poland the President declared that the 'West' must defend its civilisation from terrorism and the erosion of tradition, before jumping on Air Force One for the flight to Hamburg.

It seems unlikely that Donald Trump has bothered to read Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilisations. Rather, it is clear that Steve Bannon's nationalist rhetoric is on the up once again in the White House. This form of us-vs-them global policy making has the headline grabbing weight that Trump enjoys, while placating his domestic supporters that he is sticking one in the eye to everyone else, but doesn't provide a stable position from which to engage with negotiations with world leaders who actively do not identify as 'Western'.

This isn't the first time that Donald Trump has effectively put both feet in his mouth prior to meeting world leaders. But the fact that he hopes to make progress with Russia's President Putin over Syria, and Chinese President Xi Jinping over North Korea means that he has already undermined American foreign policy. The establishment of any agreements between the leaders at the G20 will have to navigate an America First platform that sees Russia and China as civilisations that threaten the traditions and values of the United States and its Western allies.

That President Trump made this speech in Poland was no coincidence. It was designed to send a message to Russia that America will not accept the spread of Russian influence in Eastern Europe, nor will it accept the spread of values that are not conducive to Western traditions. The fact that the President's senior advisor predicted a clash between the United States and China as a civilisational conflict does not obscure the belief of some on the right in America of seeing the Russian Orthodox culture as a direct threat to Western traditions. The fact that the relationship between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia continues to be investigated only adds weight to the impetus for the Trump administration to ramp up the us-vs-them rhetoric to distract from domestic criticism.

The fact that the G20 is presented as a more diverse cultural and political forum for discussing issues of global import seems to fly directly in the face of the Trump administration's priorities. If Chancellor Merkel was hoping for a constructive and forward thinking summit environment it seems she may be disappointed.

As the German officials roll out the red carpet and the TV cameras film President Trump stepping out of Air Force One, the mood amongst the world leaders gathered in Hamburg cannot be one of hope in finding a mutually agreeable series of commitments from the most powerful man on earth.

 


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Healthcare’s biggest losers: Which states are harmed the most under the Senate TrumpCare plan? [feedly]

Healthcare's biggest losers: Which states are harmed the most under the Senate TrumpCare plan?
http://www.epi.org/publication/healthcares-biggest-losers-which-states-are-harmed-the-most-under-the-senate-trumpcare-plan/

In their campaigns, Republican candidates for Congress and the presidency were unanimous in denunciations of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for increasing health insurance premiums and deductibles. Senate Republicans are struggling to pass a plan called the "Better Care Reconciliation Act" (BCRA) that would increase premiums and deductibles even higher than those currently paid under the ACA.

Gary Claxton, Anthony Damico, Larry Levitt, and Cynthia Cox of the Kaiser Family Foundation have estimated the increases in premiums for plans matching the extent of coverage currently available under 'silver' plans for the year 2020. To focus on the impact on family budgets, they report premium amounts after the tax credits that subsidize purchases of health insurance are accounted for. Kaiser researchers found that marketplace enrollees would pay on average 74 percent more toward the premium for a benchmark silver plan in 2020 under the BCRA than under current law.

Economic Snapshot

In Alabama, for example, premiums would increase 164 percent from $156 a month to $411 under the BRCA. In Alaska, they would increase 142 percent from $334 a month to $802 a month. The reductions in premium subsidies, in concert with tax cuts for the wealthy, will cost Americans jobs as well. Because low- and moderate-income households tend to spend a much higher share of their disposable income, the overall effect of the BCRA would be less spending and lower aggregate demand across every state and congressional district.

This pain is highly unequal in its distribution, in more ways than one: There are differences in net premium increases among the states. These results actually understate the increases in out-of-pocket costs under BCRA since they do not reflect the higher deductibles that would be imposed.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed