Saturday, November 10, 2018

What the Hell Happened to Brazil? (Wonkish) [feedly]

What the Hell Happened to Brazil? (Wonkish)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/opinion/what-the-hell-happened-to-brazil-wonkish.html

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Dean Baker: Tuesday’s Election: Racism and Anti-Semitism Versus Social Security and Medicare [feedly]

Tuesday's Election: Racism and Anti-Semitism Versus Social Security and Medicare

Dean Baker

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/tuesday-s-election-racism-and-anti-semitism-versus-social-security-and-medicare

Dean Baker
Truthout, November 6, 2018

See article on original site

I have followed politics closely since 1968. I have seen many unpleasant political figures. I have also seen many clear dog whistles to racists, with the racism lurking just below the surface.

When Richard Nixon talked about being tough on crime, everyone knew the race of the criminals whose specter he was invoking. The same was true of Ronald Reagan with his racist stories about young Black men buying steaks with food stamps. And when George H.W. Bush ran an ad featuring Willie Horton, a convicted murderer, no one thought he was talking about prison reform.

But, these politicians felt a need to at least put a thin veneer over their appeals to racism. That is not the case with Donald Trump and today's Republicans. The racism is there for all to see, mixed in with a huge helping of anti-Semitism.

Blatant racism and anti-Semitism is on display as the election approaches with Donald Trump hyperventilating about the prospect that a few thousand people from Central America may seek asylum in the United States. But there is a long list of actions and words that tie Donald Trump and the Republican Party to racists and anti-Semites.

The list begins with Trump's efforts to ban Muslim immigrants in the first days of his administration. It includes failing to mention Jews as victims of the Holocaust. Trump also couldn't bring himself to condemn the Nazis who marched in Charlottesville, chanting "Jews will not replace us."

Trump openly encourages his audience with chants of "lock him up" in reference to George Soros, whose major "crime" is being a progressive Jew. In the last weeks the president has made up ever more absurd claims about the risks posed by a group of people (the so-called "caravan") that is coming up from Central America through Mexico and intends to seek asylum at the border.

I realize from my Twitter feed that alarmism is spreading about what it would mean for the US to absorb the asylum seekers from the caravan. A few numbers may help counter that alarmism.

I have seen all sorts of estimates of the size of this group, but let's say it is 5,000 people. That's more than any estimate I have seen. Based on past precedent, the vast majority of these people will be denied asylum, but let's say that the impossible happens and all 5,000 get asylum.

We are a country of 330 million people. Five thousand people getting asylum amounts to less than 0.002 percent of the US population. To put that in a slightly different perspective, if you had $10,000 in the bank, the asylum seekers, relative to the US population, it would be less than 16 cents out of your bank account. And, these people are excluded from most government benefits, so there is no credible story about taxes being changed in any noticeable way.

In short, the only issue here is racism. Trump and the Republicans are saying, "Don't worry about your wages, your family's access to health care, your kids' ability to go to college, we are going to keep white people safe from people emigrating from Central America."

And it's not just that Trump and the Republicans are not offering help to working people, they have made it very clear they want to make things worse. Their health care plan is all about removing the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with health issues like cancer or heart disease.

They also have made it very clear that they want to cut Social Security and Medicare. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said this explicitly last month when he argued that the large budget deficits caused by the GOP tax cut will make it necessary to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Of course, the vast majority of the benefits from the tax cut went to the rich. So, this is yet another part of the upward redistribution story we have been seeing for the last four decades.

Trump and the Republicans are trying to present themselves as a populist party, but they offer nothing but racism and bigotry to ordinary workers. This is a sharp contrast with right-wing populists in other countries whose parties combine xenophobic and racist appeals with platforms supporting public benefits like Social Security and Medicare.

In countries where right-wing populists have come to power, like Hungary, they have pursued policies that led to large gains in living standards for white workers at the middle and bottom of the income distribution, even while stoking sentiments that have increased discrimination and violence toward workers of color.

By contrast, Trump and the Republicans are looking to reduce the meager benefits that ordinary workers now have. (Our Social Security system is stingy by international standards, and the US stands out as the only wealthy country without national health care insurance.)

So, Trump really has nothing to offer to his working-class supporters in terms of improving their standard of living. All he can tell them is that Jews will not replace them.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Dani Rodrik: Reclaiming Community


Reclaiming Community
Nov 9, 2018 DANI RODRIK


PreviousNext

No one can deny that this consumer- and market-centric vision of the economy has produced plenty of fruit. The dazzling array of consumer goods available in the megastores or Apple outlets of any major city in the world would have been unimaginable as recently as a generation ago.But clearly something has gone wrong in the meantime. The economic and social divisions within our societies have provoked a broad backlash in a wide range of settings – from the United States, Italy, and Germany in the developed world to developing countries such as the Philippines and Brazil. This political turmoil suggests that economists' priorities may not have been entirely appropriate.

Two books, one forthcoming from Raghuram Rajan and another published this month by Oren Cass, revisit our economistic worldview and argue that we should instead put the health of our local communities front and center. Stable families, good jobs, strong schools, abundant and safe public spaces, and pride in local cultures and history – these are the essential elements of prosperous societies. Neither global markets nor the nation-state can adequately supply them, and sometimes markets and states undermine them.

The authors come from different vantage points. Rajan is an economist at the University of Chicago and a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India. Cass is at the right-of-center Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and was domestic policy director for Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. You would not necessarily expect either a Chicago economist or a moderate Republican to treat markets and hyper-globalization with skepticism. But both are disturbed by what they see as the effects on communities.

Rajan calls community the "third pillar" of prosperity, as important as the other two pillars – the state and market. No less than excessive centralized state power, he writes, unmanaged globalization can tear apart the fabric of local communities. Cass is explicit that US trade and immigration policy should focus on American workers first and foremost. This means ensuring that local labor markets are healthy and that there are plenty of goods jobs at decent wages. Both authors emphasize the gains from trade and reject US President Donald Trump's protectionism. But they agree we may have gone too far into hyper-globalization and paid insufficient attention to the costs for communities.


Economists' usual answer is to call for "greater labor market flexibility": workers should simply leave depressed areas and seek jobs elsewhere. But as Cass reminds us, geographical mobility has to be coupled with "the opportunity to stay." Even during times of significant migration, the bulk of local populations stayed put and needed good jobs and solid communities.When a local factory closes because a firm has decided to outsource to a supplier across the border, more is lost than the hundreds (or thousands) of jobs that move abroad. The impact is multiplied through reduced spending on local goods and services, which means workers and employers across the entire local economy feel the hit. The local government's tax revenues fall as well, so there is less money to spend on education and other public amenities. Anomie, family breakdown, opioid addiction, and other social ills often follow.

Alternatively, economists might recommend compensating the losers from economic change, through social transfers and other benefits. Leaving aside the feasibility of such transfers, it is doubtful that they are the solution. Joblessness will undermine individual and community wellbeing even if consumption levels are propped up through cash grants.

Ultimately, it is only through the creation and expansion of well-paying jobs that local communities can be made vital. Cass's proposal is to encourage employment through wage subsidies. Rajan emphasizes the role of local leaders who can mobilize community assets, generate social engagement on the part of local residents, and create a new image – all in the context of more supportive state policies and managed globalization.

Other economists have advocated regionally targeted manufacturing extension programs, fostering partnerships between local employers and universities. Yet others recommend local public spending, such as on job training programs for small and medium-sized enterprises.

We do not have a good fix on what works best, and a fair amount of policy experimentation will be needed to make progress. But the urgency of action is heightened by the fact that ongoing technological trends threaten to exacerbate communities' existing problems. New digital technologies tend to exhibit scale economies and network effects, which produce concentration rather than localization of production. Instead of diffusing gains, they create winner-take-all markets. The globalization of production networks magnifies such effects further.

How we balance these forces with the needs of communities will shape not only our economic fortunes, but also our social and political environment. As Cass and Rajan show, it is a problem that economists should no longer ignore.

DANI RODRIK


Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy, Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science, and, most recently, Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy.
--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

The new Democratic House should make worker empowerment a priority [feedly]

The new Democratic House should make worker empowerment a priority
https://www.epi.org/blog/the-new-democratic-house-should-make-worker-empowerment-a-priority/

For the first time in nearly a decade, Democrats will hold the majority in the House when Congress convenes in January. The results of yesterday's election are encouraging and represent historic progress—with a record number of women winning seats in the house, including key victories by diverse candidates across faiths and ethnicities. And importantly, Democrats won the popular vote in the House by a 9.2 percent margin despite today's 3.7 percent unemployment rate, which should have provide great advantage to the incumbent party.

It is nevertheless important to note that with Republicans in control of the Senate and the White House, it is unlikely that policies that promote a just economy for working people will become law. Still, House Democrats have the opportunity to advance long overdue reforms. It is critical that they focus on an agenda that serves our nation's workers. This must include House Democrats working to raise workers' wages, restore workers' access to justice on the job, and promote workers' right to collectively bargain.

Workers deserve a fair minimum wage. At $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage is now more than 25 percent below where it was in real terms half a century ago. House Democrats must advance legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024, indexing it to the national median wage thereafter, and phasing out the tipped minimum wage and other subminimum wages. Given inflation expectations, $15 in 2024 would be around $13.00 in 2018 dollars, an appropriate level for the federal floor. The Raise the Wage Act introduced this Congress included all of these reforms. The House must work to pass similar legislation in the new Congress.

Workers should not be forced to sign away their rights as a condition of employment. The use of mandatory arbitration and collective and class action waivers—under which workers are forced to handle workplace disputes as individuals through arbitration, rather than being able to resolve these matters together in court—makes it more difficult for workers to enforce their rights. These agreements bar access to the courts for all types of employment-related claims, including those based on the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act. This means that a worker who is not paid fairly, discriminated against, or sexually harassed, is forced into a process that overwhelmingly favors the employer—and forced to manage this process alone, even though these issues are rarely confined to one single worker. Congress must act to ban mandatory arbitration agreements and class and collective action waivers. The Restoring Justice for Workers Act introduced this Congress includes all of these reforms. The House should work to pass this important reform in the new Congress.

Workers must have strong collective bargaining rights. A recent poll found that 60 percent of adults have a favorable view of labor unions. However, as of 2017, only 10.7 percent of wage and salary workers were union members. This disconnect is the result of decades of fierce opposition to unions and collective bargaining, with employers exploiting loopholes in outdated labor law to defeat workers' organizing efforts, while corporate lobbyists have blocked attempts at reform. We know unions are a significant force for a fair economy by examining the impact of their decline since the 1970s. As unions have declined, inequality between middle- and high-wage workers has grown. Congress must work to revitalize workers' right to join a union and collectively bargain. The Workers' Freedom to Negotiate Act introduced this Congress includes many critical reforms to our nation's labor law that would help to restore collective bargaining rights and provide workers a meaningful voice in the workplace. The House should consider this legislation in the new Congress.

The current legal and political framework favors corporate interests dedicated to rolling back worker protections and advancing business practices that leave fewer and fewer workers covered by existing laws. Democratic leadership in the House has the chance to show our nation's workers that they will fight to change this rigged system and promote policies that work for our nation's workers. Legislation has already been developed that would provide important reforms. A Democratic majority in the House can and should advance an agenda that includes these legislative initiatives and use their power to ensure that our national debate involves workers' voices.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Mark Thoma: Links (11/5/18) [feedly]

Mark Thoma has a host of interesting links today....too many to post separately
Enjoy, and learn. I especially liked Tim Taylor's takeon Scandinavia, the data on global convergence

Links (11/5/18)
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2018/11/links-11518.html

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Monday, November 5, 2018

Progress Radio:The NAME IN PROGRESS Podcast -- the Birthright Chicken Show -- Nov 1, 2018

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Progress Radio
Post: The NAME IN PROGRESS Podcast -- the Birthright Chicken Show -- Nov 1, 2018
Link: http://progress.enlightenradio.org/2018/11/the-name-in-progress-podcast-birthright.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Grappling With Globalization 4.0 [feedly]

Grappling With Globalization 4.0
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-4-0-by-klaus-schwab-2018-11
Grappling With Globalization 4.0

Nov 5, 2018 KLAUS SCHWAB

The world is experiencing an economic and political upheaval that will not cease any time soon. The forces of the Fourth Industrial Revolution have ushered in a new economy and a new form of globalization, both of which demand new forms of governance to safeguard the public good.

GENEVA – After World War II, the international community came together to build a shared future. Now, it must do so again. Owing to the slow and uneven recovery in the decade since the global financial crisis, a substantial part of society has become disaffected and embittered, not only with politics and politicians, but also with globalization and the entire economic system it underpins. In an era of widespread insecurity and frustration, populism has become increasingly attractive as an alternative to the status quo.

TRUMPONOMICS AND THE US MIDTERM ELECTIONS

Nov 2, 2018 PROJECT SYNDICATEinterviews ANGUS DEATON, et al.about the state of the US economy and its political implications.

6Add to Bookmarks
PreviousNext

But populist discourse elides – and often confounds – the substantive distinctions between two concepts: globalization and globalism. Globalization is a phenomenon driven by technology and the movement of ideas, people, and goods. Globalism is an ideology that prioritizes the neoliberal global order over national interests. Nobody can deny that we are living in a globalized world. But whether all of our policies should be "globalist" is highly debatable.

After all, this moment of crisis has raised important questions about our global-governance architecture. With more and more voters demanding to "take back control" from "global forces," the challenge is to restore sovereignty in a world that requires cooperation. Rather than closing off economies through protectionism and nationalist politics, we must forge a new social compact between citizens and their leaders, so that everyone feels secure enough at home to remain open to the world at large. Failing that, the ongoing disintegration of our social fabric could ultimately lead to the collapse of democracy.

Moreover, the challenges associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution(4IR) are coinciding with the rapid emergence of ecological constraints, the advent of an increasingly multipolar international order, and rising inequality. These integrated developments are ushering in a new era of globalization. Whether it will improve the human condition will depend on whether corporate, local, national, and international governance can adapt in time.

Meanwhile, a new framework for global public-private cooperation has been taking shape. Public-private cooperation is about harnessing the private sector and open markets to drive economic growth for the public good, with environmental sustainability and social inclusiveness always in mind. But to determine the public good, we first must identify the root causes of inequality.

For example, while open markets and increased competition certainly produce winners and losers in the international arena, they may be having an even more pronounced effect on inequality at the national level. Moreover, the growing divide between the precariat and the privileged is being reinforced by 4IR business models, which often derive rents from owning capital or intellectual property.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Long reads, book reviews, exclusive interviews, full access to the Big Picture, unlimited archive access, and our annual Year Aheadmagazine.

LEARN MORE

Closing that divide requires us to recognize that we are living in a new type of innovation-driven economy, and that new global norms, standards, policies, and conventions are needed to safeguard the public trust. The new economy has already disrupted and recombined countless industries, and dislocated millions of workers. It is dematerializing production, by increasing the knowledge intensity of value creation. It is heightening competition within domestic product, capital, and labor markets, as well as among countries adopting different trade and investment strategies. And it is fueling distrust, particularly of technology companies and their stewardship of our data.

The unprecedented pace of technological change means that our systems of health, transportation, communication, production, distribution, and energy – just to name a few – will be completely transformed. Managing that change will require not just new frameworks for national and multinational cooperation, but also a new model of education, complete with targeted programs for teaching workers new skills. With advances in robotics and artificial intelligence in the context of aging societies, we will have to move from a narrative of production and consumption toward one of sharing and caring.

Globalization 4.0 has only just begun, but we are already vastly underprepared for it. Clinging to an outdated mindset and tinkering with our existing processes and institutions will not do. Rather, we need to redesign them from the ground up, so that we can capitalize on the new opportunities that await us, while avoiding the kind of disruptions that we are witnessing today.

As we develop a new approach to the new economy, we must remember that we are not playing a zero-sum game. This is not a matter of free trade or protectionism, technology or jobs, immigration or protecting citizens, and growth or equality. Those are all false dichotomies, which we can avoid by developing policies that favor "and" over "or," allowing all sets of interests to be pursued in parallel.

To be sure, pessimists will argue that political conditions are standing in the way of a productive global dialogue about Globalization 4.0 and the new economy. But realists will use the current moment to explore the gaps in the present system, and to identify the requirements for a future approach. And optimists will hold out hope that future-oriented stakeholders will create a community of shared interest and, ultimately, shared purpose.

The changes that are underway today are not isolated to a particular country, industry, or issue. They are universal, and thus require a global response. Failing to adopt a new cooperative approach would be a tragedy for humankind. To draft a blueprint for a shared global-governance architecture, we must avoid becoming mired in the current moment of crisis management.

Specifically, this task will require two things of the international community: wider engagement and heightened imagination. The engagement of all stakeholders in sustained dialogue will be crucial, as will the imagination to think systemically, and beyond one's own short-term institutional and national considerations.

These will be the two organizing principles of the World Economic Forum's upcoming Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, which will convene under the theme of "Globalization 4.0: Shaping a New Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution". Ready or not, a new world is upon us.


KLAUS SCHWAB

Writing for PS since 2013
15 Commentaries

Klaus Schwab is Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed