Looking at the economic world as it really is

“Real-world” economists now have a whole Weblog of their own. They have just launched it at http://rwer.wordpress.com with a series of articles that look at the economic world as it really is.

There you’ll find answers to questions mostly ignored by U.S. media. For example:

-- What country in Latin America is expected to have record economic growth this year even though it ignored the advice of the IMF and the U.S. business press?

-- Why are the investment rules in the pending U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement “dangerous, outdated, and out of touch with most of the [non-U.S.] trade agreements in the world”?

The first article is by Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research; the second, by Kevin P. Gallagher, professor of international relations at Boston University..

The new Real-World Economics Review blog replaces the Website of the same name, which is an outgrowth of the “Post-Autistic Economics” movement, the pioneer in re-thinking conventional economics.

Print Page Read more!

How to win a Nobel Prize in economics

Early October is a good time to root for your favorite economist to win a Nobel Prize. Mine this year was Thomas Paley, an economist with broad and long experience in think tanks, the labor movement, and governmental agencies. Unfortunately, he didn’t make it. Instead, two other American scholars were awakened by early morning phone calls from Stockholm October 12 notifying them they had won the 2009 Noble prize in economics.

The Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences cited both of them, Elinor Ostrom, a professor of political economy at Indiana University, and Oliver Williamson, an economist at the University of California at Berkley, for their “analysis of economic governance,” particularly for contributing to the understanding of how institutions act in situations not covered by detailed contracts or law.

“Whereas economic theory has comprehensively illuminated the virtues and limitations of markets, it has traditionally paid less attention to other institutional arrangements,” the Nobel press release explains. Attachments to the release describe how Ostrom and Williamson have contributed to filling that void – theoretical and actual -- in economic governance.

Thereby, the Nobel committee passed over economists who have done ground-breaking research to fill another gap – theoretical and actual: the gap in global economic governance, which today has gained an immediacy from the economic crisis gripping much of the world. Among the scholars who have focused on this area are Thomas Paley and Dani Rodrik, professor of international political economy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

My own decades-long personal exploration of the global economy, as described in my book, “Justice at Work: Globalization and the Human Rights for Workers,” and on this Weblog, has convinced me

-- that the global economy undervalues work, workers, and worker organizations and
-- that economists traditionally also undervalue work, workers, and worker organizations.

The economist who, in my limited view, departs most sharply from that tradition is Thomas Palley, author two books, dozens of articles in academic journals, and numerous policy papers. His most recent work is a timely policy paper for the New Century Foundation titled “America’s Exhausted Paradigm: Macroeconomic Causes of the Financial Crisis and Great Recession.” I summarized the main points of that paper in my August 25, 2009, posting on this Blog under the heading: “Rx: a new economic model that would value work and workers.”

Let me try summarizing that summary.

Palley’s key point, as I saw it, was that the “neo-liberal” policies adopted after 1980 under Ronald Reagan put workers in a box, figuratively and literally. The box’s anti-worker policy pressures come from four sides:

--globalization (chiefly free trade and unfettered movement of capital),
-- a retreat from full employment,
-- labor market flexibility (i.e., to fight unions, minimum wages, unemployment benefits, and other worker rights), and
-- “small government” (deregulation, privatization, and outsourcing, all to the disadvantage of workers).

In commending Professors Williamson and Ostrom, the Nobel panel noted that both scholars were “instrumental in establishing economic governance as a field of research.” Indeed, the selection itself adds to that legitimacy.

Were someone like Tom Palley similarly rewarded, the selection would also serve to stimulate research in global economic governance, where the role of workers and their organizations suffers from wholesale neglect.

“What Do Unions Do?” by two Harvard economists, Richard B. Freeman and James L. Medoff, published in 1984, was an economic assessment of American unionism of that era. It badly needs updating. More accurately, a new book is needed to reveal a new paradigm – how workers and their unions are involved in 21st century global economic governance.

One chapter, or more, could be devoted to an empirical study of the trade union movement in Malaysia and its historic campaigns for Malaysian workers and often against the Malaysian government and the foreign multinationals that profited from “labor market flexibility.” In defiance of the government, for example, the Malaysian Trades Union Confederation has long publicly supported adding requirements for enforceable labor standards to international trade agreements.

Many other countries have a wealth of labor material ready to be mined by researchers in the 21st century model of global economic governance. The research is worth doing for its own sake, and – who knows? – could even lead to a pre-dawn phone call from Stockholm.

Print Page Read more!

3 MDs, 3 different diagnoses

You’re sick with a bad sore throat. You go to three different doctors. You get three different diagnoses of your illness.

That personalized analogy, as fleshed out in a Salon article, is a good way to understand the different basic approaches that today’s economists take in diagnosing the current economic sickness.

Michael Lind, director of the New America Foundation’s economic growth program, analyzes the parallel diagnoses in his April 7 Salon article titled “Rx for the Economy: Which Doctor Should We Believe?" Here’s my somewhat oversimplified summary of his enlightening MD/PhDecon analysis.

-- The first doctor says you have a sore throat and prescribes an aspirin.
-- The second says your sore throat is a symptom of pneumonia and prescribes antibiotics.
--The third doctor sees your condition as more complex. He prescribes aspirin for the sore throat and antibiotics for your pneumonia, but also a 12-step program for overcoming alcoholism, an addiction that has weakened your immune system and renders it vulnerable to infections like pneumonia.

Those three different diagnoses have their parallels in three different ways that economists see what went wrong to cause the greatest global economic collapse since the Depression of the 1930s.

-- Economic doctor No. 1 blames lax financial regulation for turning the U.S. housing bubble into the current crisis. So the cure is some new financial regulation and tougher enforcement, national and international.

-- That cure is fine, says Economic doctor No.2, but it does not go far enough. It fails to deal with a larger cause – global trade imbalances, created by American (household, corporate, and governmental) overspending and oversaving by China and several other Asian governments to steer more investment into export manufacturing. The cure is not only tougher regulation but also a global economic rebalancing that includes a curb on currency manipulation.

-- Enter Doctor No. 3, whose diagnosis includes but is not limited to the diagnoses of the other two physicians. The bubble-blowing system of unbalanced trade never would have arisen in the first place, had employers on both sides of the Pacific shared more of the gains from productivity growth with their workers.

So the present crisis is caused indirectly by poor regulation, proximately by global trade imbalances, and ultimately by the maldistribution of the gains from economic growth among employers and workers in major industrial countries. The basic idea, as explained in Lind’s own words:

“Rich people have a lower propensity to consume (the term was coined by Keynes) than middle-class and low-income people. It follows that if the gains from productivity growth go to workers, they are more likely to spend the money, stimulating further investment and further growth. But if the gains from productivity growth disproportionately go to the rich, they are less likely to spend the money on mass-produced goods and services than they are to save the money or use it to speculate in assets. The result? Either the economy chokes (too much savings) or explodes (asset bubbles).“

The cure? Lind ends his article without specifying one. No wonder. Even the economists who agree on the overall diagnosis – Robert Reich, James K. Galbraith, and Thomas Palley, among others -- have not reached a consensus on anything like a 12-point recovery program.

Lind’s closing sentences: “We had better hope that the first physician is right: the world economy’s sore throat is nothing more than a sore throat, and an aspirin in the form of more financial regulation will be sufficient as a cure. Otherwise, the patient is a serious trouble.”

(For my analysis of Thomas Palley’s ideas, keep tuned.)

Print Page Read more!

The Failure of the Economy -- and of the Economists

So Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs reports the highest profits in the firm’s 140-year history -- $3,440,000,000 for the second quarter of this year – and earmarks an average of about $770,000 in bonuses for each of its 29,400 employees. Meanwhile, 14,700,000 men and women in the United States are jobless, triggering an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, the highest level in more than a quarter century.

That’s an example of an imbalance in our economic system – an imbalance that favors workers who manipulate money over those who actually produce something. In a May 29 New York Review of Books article, a leading economist, Benjamin M. Friedman, fills in some of the details of this imbalance.

Friedman does so by using a favorite tool of economists: efficiency. His article, “The Failure of the Economy & the Economists,” tracks performance in several ways, starting with profit-making:

“In recent years the financial industry has accounted for an unusually large share of all profits earned in the US economy. The share of the ‘finance’ sector in total corporate profits rose from 10 percent on average from the 1950s through the 1980s, to 22 percent in the 1990s, and an astonishing 34 percent in the first half of this decade.”

Moreover: “The finance industry’s share of U.S. wages and salaries has likewise been rising from 3 percent in the early 1950s to 7 percent in the current decade. An important question … is what fraction of the economy’s total returns to productively invested capital is absorbed up front by the financial industry as the costs of allocating that capital.”

Friedman, author of “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth," insists that the question is important, since the total cost of the industry goes up “if this system also exposes the economy at large to episodic losses in production and incomes and to the need for taxpayer subsidies.” And that’s what’s happening now. “Today those losses are mounting, and so are the subsidies.”

Why, Friedman asks, is there so little discussion of this fundamental reality?

One reason, he says, is intellectual: the systematic failure of thinking on the part of economists. He explains that failure at some length, and presents one solution offered by economists George Akerlof and Robert Shiller: “fire the weather forecaster.”

Just to be clear: I don’t support firing economists guilty of intellectual failures. That would be inefficient. We should first give them the opportunity to participate in intensive retraining programs.

Are you laughing? I am not.

Print Page Read more!

Campaigning against 'toxic' economics

In the ‘90s college students taught their elders in academia that sweatshops were an evil in which the schools were complicit by selling sweatshop-made products in their own bookstores. Will this generation of college students again teach their elders, this time to the fact that the economic textbooks commonly used in their classrooms are promoting dangerously “toxic” economic policies?

“Toxic textbooks helped cause the economic meltdown,” states a petition being circulated worldwide to press for reforming what it calls the “mass miseducation” of millions of students each year “in a quaint ideology...cunningly disguised as a science.”

The campaign is aimed particularly at students because reform by the profession itself won’t happen “without massive pressure from the student body,” writes Steve Keen, an economist at the University of Western Sydney, Australia.

Textbook reforms are blocked by “vested interests,” including economic departments whose reputations are intertwined with the textbooks they use, endorse, and (in some cases) write. A new Website, Toxic Textbooks, and a Facebook group with the same name, Toxic Textbooks, have been created to help mobilize people, especially students, “to overcome these vested interests.”

So far the campaign has not made a recommendation on alternative textbooks. The Website has a question mark under a section titled “non-toxic textbooks.”

Here is what I posted to the Facebook discussion of “What and where are the alternatives?”:

It is probably impossible quickly to find a full-blown alternative text book, or create a single Website that formulates the key points of an alternative economic paradigm. We will have to make do with pluralism in textbooks and Websites. Patch work? Well, it's a good way to start.

I would like to point to two of my own contributions to this initiative:

1. My newly published JUSTICE AT WORK: GLOBALIZATION AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF WORKERS. Its main theme: the present unbalanced global economy, especially its trade and investment regime, protects the rights and interests of business and business organizations, to the exclusion of the rights and interests of workers and worker organizations. Check it out at .

2. My Weblog, Human Rights for Workers, at http://humanrightsforworkers.blogspot.com, which deals mostly with the main theme of the book.

This is a continuing real-life drama. Why not join it?


Print Page Read more!