----
Trump Rigged
// Cartoons – Cagle Post

----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Economics without Scarcity [feedly]
----
Economics without Scarcity
// TripleCrisis
Economists have often been characterized as a dry, calculating bunch, focusing on the allocation of scarce resources with carefully drawn supply and demand curves. The reason for this is that economics has, in Neoclassical theory and particularly within the writings of Lionel Robbins, emphasized choices and competition under conditions of scarcity. Mainstream economic theory, rooted in Neoclassical thought, has continued in this vein, with a focus on market efficiency as the rule. So, why do I have a problem with it?
Mainstream theory embodies decades of debate and rigorous application, but its focus on choice under scarcity has centered the study of economics on products, not people. The assumption that people are there to either consume or produce products moves away from any requirements for basic human well-being, as emphasized by Amartya Sen in his own criticism of Neoclassical economics, supposes that consumers and producers always want to buy or sell more goods, and fails to focus on aspects of nature (such as forests or coral reefs) as more than resources, such as entities with a right to exist without subjugation to the human race.
These assumptions are flawed and not universally held.
First, with regard to the role of humans as producers or consumers, Karl Marx focused on labor not as one component in product, but as the most important component of value creation. Marx centered on the struggle between capitalists and workers, and the exploitation by the former of the latter, as the primary economic issue. As the Neoclassical school arose, Marx's labor theory of value was ditched in favor of marginalism, with emphasizes consumer satisfaction and producer costs, with little to no emphasis on the plight of the worker. Later, economists like Amartya Sen focused on economic development as more than accumulation of products or wealth, but as capabilities to live, function, and enjoy life.
Second, the assumption that consumers always want to buy more goods and producers always want to sell more goods may be true sometimes, but grossly oversimplifies the nature of production in society. It defies the mind, but not all societies are about working and shopping. In many places, accumulating goods or wealth is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.
Third, while environmental economics and theories of public goods have sought to describe how natural and common resources should be valued, there is a failure in both aspects of Mainstream theory to recognize the rights of nonhuman living beings to exist. This idea is not that far-fetched; the nation of Ecuador recognized Rights for Nature in its Constitution adopted in September 2008. The city of Santa Monica, California, also recognized "natural communities and ecosystems" right to exist. Biocentric rights theories, and some religious and ethical theories make the same assertion.
What is more, in most cases, the concept of scarcity has rarely prevented economic agents from exploiting resources. The fact is, despite the definition of economics as the study of the allocation of scarce resources, it doesn't really work. Labor and nature in particular have been used in many places and times as if they have no upper limit. Workers are frequently overworked and underpaid as if labor was not scarce, and natural resources have been used up often without replenishment.
While I risk being accused of a lack of realism, I believe that the definition of economics as a study of scarcity is unethical and disingenuous in its current embodiment. This study has helped to foster some of the ills we experience as a society, producing and consuming ever more as long as we can, without really considering our effect on humanity and nature. After the global crisis, some economists, particularly heterodox, or non-Mainstream economists, called for a restructuring of the economics discipline. This didn't happen. Now, as we face a potential climate crisis, can we change our understanding of this critical field? Reshaping economics as the study of livelihoods, relationships to other humans, institutions, and nature, and well-being may be a step in the right direction. Perhaps the next generation will understand that economics is more than filling our storage units and bank accounts, and give credence to other, essential aspects of life.
Triple Crisis welcomes your comments. Please share your thoughts below.
Triple Crisis is published by
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan [feedly]
----
Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders's College Tuition Plan
// NYT > Business
The presumptive Democratic nominee's campaign said she plans to eliminate tuition at in-state public colleges for families with annual incomes under $125,000.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Bond yields are just so damn low…what is that telling us? [feedly]
----
Bond yields are just so damn low…what is that telling us?
// Jared Bernstein | On the Economy
I pour the morning cup of mud, schlep out to the stoop to get my paper, and open my WSJ to learn that the yield curve is awfully flat (i.e., the difference between the interest rates of bonds of different maturities is low). In fact, the yield on the 10-yr–1.367% yesterday–is the lowest on record. And the difference between the 10 and 2-yr Treasury yields, at about 0.8, is the same as it was in November, 2007.
Source: WSJ
Not good, and very much worth noticing. There are those who will tell you the yield curve is a revealing recession indicator and that a narrow 10/2 year spread is flashing red. But now isn't late 2007. Most importantly, of course, the housing bubble was imploding back then, whacking bank portfolios, wiping out trillions in wealth, and generating both a credit freeze and a demand-killing negative wealth effect. Also, the Fed funds rate has been at or near zero since around 2009, so that's also very much in the mix here, holding down Treas yields.
One must be steely-eyed in these circs and avoid unnecessary bedwetting. On the negative side, along with the flat yield curve, we have:
–the strong dollar: it hurts our trade competitiveness and puts downward pressure on inflation and thus props up the real interest rate;
–volatile markets/uncertainty: surely a bigger problem for the UK than us/US, but watch our equity markets for wealth effects; still, credit flows here seem largely untouched;
–possible weakening job growth: that's a big one of which I'll have more to say later this week.
On the plus side:
–low unemployment, a bit of wage growth, and low inflation, while a problem re propping up real interest rates, is helping paychecks go further;
–growth: kind of the bottom line here, and while it's been bumpy, we're basically posting growth rates of around 2%, yr/yr, which ain't great (and reflects a nasty downshift in productivity growth) but is actually the envy of most other advanced economies right now.
Two other things. I suspect the probability of a near-term recession remains relatively low here, well below 50%, though who knows? But what I'm absolutely certain of, as I wrote here, is that we're not ready for it, either re monetary or fiscal responses.
Finally, I couldn't be more flummoxed by this next point: these historically low Treasury rates amidst sluggish growth and an engine of job growth that could be downshifting are absolutely SCREAMING for policy makers to borrow and invest in public infrastructure. That would help on many levels now, from labor demand to productivity.
I won't make free lunch arguments, but given these yields and the potential benefits of the investments, this is lunch with a very large discount. I realize I'm screaming into the gridlocked, political void, but scream I will. And you should too, IMHO.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
A Remarkable Financial Moment [feedly]
----
A Remarkable Financial Moment
// Economist's View
Larry Summers:
A Remarkable Financial Moment: The US 10 and 30 year interest rates today reached all time low levels of 1.32 percent and 2.10 percent. Record low 10 year interest rate were also registered in Germany, France, Switzerland and Australia. Notably Swiss 50 year interest rates are now for the first time negative. Rates out 15 years are negative in Germany and 9 years in France. ...
Remarkably the market does not now expect a full Fed tightening until early 2019. This is despite all the Fed speeches expressing optimism about the economy and a desire to normalize interest rates.
I believe that these developments all reflect a growing awareness of the importance of the secular stagnation risks that I have highlighted over the last several years. ...
Unfortunately markets have been much more aggressive in responding to events than policymakers. ... Having the right world view is essential if there is to be a chance of making the right decisions. Here are the necessary adjustments.
First..., neutral real interest rates are likely close to zero going forward. ...
Second, as counterintuitive as it is to central bankers who came of age when the inflation of the 1970s defined the central banking challenge, our problem today is insufficient inflation. ...
Third, in a world where interest rates over horizons of more than a generation are far lower than even pessimistic projections of growth, traditional thinking about debt sustainability needs to be discarded. ...Brad Delong and I set out in 2012 for expansionary fiscal policy to pay for itself are much more easily satisfied today than they were at that time.
Fourth, the traditional suite of structural policies to promote flexibility are not especially likely to be successful in the current environment... Indeed in the presence of chronic excess supply structural reform has the risk of spurring disinflation rather than the contributing to a necessary increase in inflation. There is in fact a case for strengthening entitlement benefits so as to promote current demand. ...
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Why Clinton’s New Tuition-Free Higher Ed Plan Matters [feedly]
----
Why Clinton's New Tuition-Free Higher Ed Plan Matters
// Crooked Timber
The Clinton campaign made a major announcement today:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will pursue a debt-free college for all policy, including a proposal to eliminate the cost of college tuition for a significant portion of the public.
…
Clinton's new proposals move her beyond previous statements that she would try to make college "as debt-free as possible" and toward making "debt-free college available to all."
Clinton is adding three features to her plan for higher education policy, called the "New College Compact." They include eliminating tuition at in-state public universities for families making under $125,000 by 2021 and restoring year-round Pell Grant funding so students can take summer classes to finish school quicker.
The plan isn't great. I think means-testing higher ed makes about as much sense as means-testing Social Security or elementary school (though, alas, we still do that in this country through local funding and property taxes). I would have preferred free higher ed for everyone.
That said, and assuming Clinton can get this plan through (a big assumption), this is still a big step forward. For three reasons.
First, lots of men and women—students and their families—will get this benefit, not in a far-off time, but soon. And make no mistake: whether you're going to CUNY, where annual tuition is a little over $6000, or Berkeley or Michigan, where in-state tuition is about $13,000, this will come as welcome relief to a lot of people.
Second, and more important for the long term, I've been saying forever that the biggest challenge facing contemporary liberalism is that, from the point of view of the average taxpayer, it has so little to offer. Imagine you're someone who lives in a house with the median household income of about $54,000 per year. You pay your taxes, but what do you concretely get for the taxes? Sure, I can point to the roads (which are often falling apart) or the schools (which are often not so good), or, down the line, to Social Security or Medicare (which, we're often told, aren't in great shape either, and in the case of Social Security, certainly can't fund a retirement). But it's hard to make the case to your average man or woman that taxes fund things that help you concretely and directly. Particularly when, at least going back to Mondale, the only message we've heard from Democrats on taxes is either: a) we'll cut them; or b) we'll increase them in order to cut the deficit and pay off the debt.
Way beyond anything between Clinton v. Sanders, this plan by Clinton is something that can, potentially, change the way people think about their taxes and what the state can do for them. It's a step toward a political and ideological realignment.
That said, there's this, too:
The new plan, announced by [Clinton's] campaign Wednesday, incorporates a major plank of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) platform and is a direct result of the private meeting Clinton had with the Vermont senator in June, the campaign said.
…
Clinton's embrace of one of the most popular parts of Sanders' platform comes as she is trying to get his core supporters — including many young people worried about college debt — to enthusiastically support her candidacy in November.
Sanders gained huge support among young voters by pushing for tuition-free public colleges nationwide, and Clinton now says she would do that for families making less than $125,000.
Which brings me to my third reason.
At moments like this, you really need to get beyond the personal politics a lot of DC and media people want to make all politics into. Despite the fact that they accuse Bernie supporters of being a cult, of worshipping an ancient socialist patriarch, they're the ones who often think of these electoral campaigns completely in terms of personality, of who's winning and who's losing. To my mind, this announcement today goes way beyond the Clinton/Sanders horserace or the Clinton/Trump race. If there is anyone to be celebrated here, it's the millions of people—particularly young people—who pushed so hard during this campaign, and who have been slowly changing American politics outside the electoral realm.
One of the biggest challenges facing democracy—as opposed to liberalism—and democratic ways of thinking and doing things, is the sense, among a lot of citizens, that political action, whether in the electoral realm or the streets, doesn't matter. That sense is not delusion; there's a lot of evidence to suggest that on some fundamentals, it doesn't matter, at least not yet. But you don't change that common sense by repeating it over and over to people. Sometimes, we on the left do that. We forget that when we do, we're not telling the average citizen anything she doesn't already know. We're merely repeating what she does know. And reinforcing her sense that there's really no point in even trying to do anything, whether at the voting booth or in the streets.
It's way too soon to say what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway: If this plan of Clinton's does come to pass—again, a big if—it could help, ever so slightly (I stress that ever so slightly), change our sense, if we claim this victory as our own (not as a beneficent handout of an elite neoliberal politician but as a response to real pressure from citizens, particularly younger citizens who have been active in so many social movements these last few years), it could help change our sense of where power lies. It could help more people see what the good activist and the smart organizer already sees: that if we could just possibly get our shit together, we might, sometimes, find power elsewhere. Not power in the abstract, but power to change the concrete terms and conditions of our daily lives.
So here's my new (really, hardly new at all, and actually not mine) political slogan, as we enter a season of (I hope) increasing, if ultimately finite, concessions from the neoliberal state: Take this, demand more, seize all.
Update (6:45 pm)
A hepful Vox piece reports on three other elements of the Clinton college plan that we should not be thrilled about.
What you need to remember—and I had forgotten—is that today's plan builds off the previous plans Clinton has announced. Those plans featured three elements, which, according to this article, will remain in play and will apply to the tuition-free plan:
First, the funding for the tuition-free plan will follow the Obamacare Medicaid expansion model, which—thanks to the Supreme Court—states can refuse to participate in. That's exactly what happened with Republican states. So even within the less than $125k range, this isn't guaranteed to be a universal benefit.
Second, students have to work ten hours a week to get the benefit. That seems like a huge boondoggle of free labor either to the university (which might wind up firing workers) or to local employers (which could do the same). Not to mention that the whole point of taxpayer-financed benefits like this is that you deserve them as a right of citizenship—and pay for them as a taxpayer—and not because you're earning them as a worker.
John Protevi pointed out to me that in her famous Daily News interview, Clinton gave us a sense of what she had in mind:
Okay, so you've got the states, you've got the institutions and you've got the families, and then students who want to take advantage of debt-free tuition have to agree to work 10 hours a week. It's work-study at the college or university, because a couple of public institutions — Arizona State University being a prime example — have lowered their costs by using students for a lot of the work. Yes, it's free. It's in effect in exchange for lower tuition. So I want that to be part of the deal.
And here is a nice primer on what that Arizona State program looks like in practice:
Education at Work (EAW) begins expansion outside Cincinnati, where it was founded, at Arizona State University in an innovative three-way partnership with worldwide online payments system company PayPal. Students working at the non-profit contact center will have the opportunity to earn up to $6,000 a year in GPA-based tax-free tuition assistance in addition to an hourly wage. The students will work as part-time employees in a fast-paced, collaborative contact center environment responding to social media and email inquiries.
Go PayPal!
Third, colleges and universities have to "work to lower the cost of actually providing the education — by, for instance, experimenting with technology to lower the cost of administration." A link in the piece takes us to an article that elaborates thus:
It's not yet clear what colleges would be required to do about costs in order to participate in the grants, but the adviser mentioned keeping spending on administration in check and using technology to lower the cost of education — for example, making it easier for some students to fulfill some requirements online. (Sebastian Thrun, the founder of Udacity, a provider of free online courses, was one of the advisers on Clinton's plan, according to the campaign.)
The neoliberal state giveth. And the neoliberal taketh—and taketh.
----
Shared via my feedly newsfeed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)