Economist Richard Wolff discusses in the video below Trump’s budget proposal, which aims to dramatically slash various benefits for many of the poorest Americans, cut taxes for the richest and ramp up military spending. It is unlikely to pass through Congress unaltered, and it is apparently somewhat fantastical in its economics, but it remains disgraceful.
I am not a socialist. In my view, social democracy, the mixed economy and a reformed capitalism which deliver widespread prosperity is surely an effective bulwark against revolutionary socialism. Indeed, in the early decades after World War II, this was more widely accepted in the West as part of the ‘soft’ fight against communism. If capitalism does not deliver the goods to the majority, it will lose legitimacy.
In a number of European countries, relatively strong unions which act as social partners with government and business, rather than as shock troops of the revolution, have helped to achieve both prosperity and a degree of social justice alongside individual liberty. There may sometimes be trade-offs between these goals, but they are worth shooting for together.
President Trump’s economic team have release their plans for the federal budget over the next ten years. It is a combination of wildly optimistic economic growth forecasts, vicious cutbacks in public services and environmental measures; and significant cuts in corporate taxes and personal taxes for the rich. But what is exercising mainstream economists are the […]
The UK, in common with all rich nations and some poorer ones too, faces an ageing population. The health and social care needed to support this needs to be well-funded, which requires sufficient wealth creation across the country.
At the moment, the UK’s productivity lags significantly behind other rich countries and needs to be seriously addressed by whichever government takes office after the upcoming election. The growth of productivity, or how much output is produced from given inputs (land, labour, capital, entrepreneurship etc), is the key to a rising standard of living. It makes possible choices between, for example, more work for a higher income, or more leisure for the same income.
The Guardian’s economics editor Larry Elliott here discusses these issues and makes a strong case for an ambitious industrial and regional policy to boost productivity growth. As he says, the average productivity in the UK’s Greater South-East, including London, is higher than that in Germany. If the average productivity of the UK as a whole is well behind that in Germany, as well as France and the US, this means that there is a strong regional dimension to the problem. The rest of the UK lags well behind the Greater South-East, and this is a major reason for the country’s high level of regional income inequality. Continue reading →
Michael Hudson’s latest book J is for Junk Economics is a treasure trove of, by current mainstream standards, radical economic ideas. Here he is on Big Government, that much-maligned feature of modern capitalist economies (p.41-2):
“Europe’s 1848 revolutions by the bourgeoisie against Europe’s royalty, landed aristocracies and their allied vested interests sought to transfer power away from government bodies controlled by these classes (eg., Britain’s House of Lords). Subsequent democratic reform movements favored progressive taxation, consumer protection and general economic regulation. These original liberals fought to tax special interests, not to free them from taxation. The thrust of parliamentary reform since the 19th century accordingly has been to make governments strong enough to tax rent extractors such as landlords, high finance and monopolists.
These rentiers have fought back by wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of individualism. Accusing politicians of corruption and insider dealing, populist demagogues assert that government is by nature incompetent as compared to private management – which turns out to be giant Wall Street corporations and trusts. The effect (indeed, the lobbying aim) of downsizing democratic government is to turn the economy over to the financial sector and its allied rentiers to administer in their own interest. The wealthy are all in favor of Big Government when it is oligarchic.
Trickle-down economists accuse social spending programs of leading to budget deficits that are inherently inflationary, but applaud tax cuts and bank bailouts that benefit primarily the FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector. Their lobbyists craft a demagogic rhetoric to attack progressive taxation, regulation and social spending programs by insisting that public management is inherently inefficient as compared to private ownership of basic infrastructure, banking and health care. Claiming that public services are not a proper function of government, they advocate privatization of state-run enterprises, roads and the post office.
Frederick Hayek’s Road to Serfdom (1944) argued that public planning to subsidize basic needs or regulate “the market” (rent extractors, banksters and fraudsters) to protect consumers and employees leads to socialist or fascist autocracy. His libertarian followers insist that government regulation violates their personal rights to charge whatever the market will bear. Their oligarchic alternative to big government is to roll back democratic reforms by attacking social spending programs, replacing progressive taxes with a low flat tax and sales taxes that fall on labor/consumers; abolishing minimum wage protection, Social Security and other public services; and privatizing public infrastructure to turn it into feudal-style rent-extraction opportunities. The aim is to un-tax the FIRE sector (mainly the One Percent) and eliminate the consumer protection and labor reforms put in place in the early 20th century Progressive Era. The meaning of the word “reform” has been inverted, using libertarian-style language coined in the late 19th century against Big Government under the control of aristocrats and other rentiers.
The real question is thus whether governments will be democratic or oligarchic. Will they subsidize the economy and undertake public infrastructure investment, or will they tax the population at large to subsidize the FIRE sector and other special interests?”
The passage below is taken from the concluding pages of John Maynard Keynes’ famous General Theory, where he speculates on the benefits to international relations from avoiding conflict over international trade. If full employment can be achieved domestically through judicious government policies this would, he hoped, lessen the need for countries to come into conflict with each other over the balance of payments of trade, investment and capital flows.
Given the historical record, I am actually skeptical about the possibilities for achieving and sustaining full employment, however that might be defined. I am therefore not a perennially optimistic Keynesian. Sooner or later, growing economic imbalances will give rise to crisis and recession, and rising unemployment. However, I do think the world economy could be more wisely managed than it is now, with the US the (still?) reluctant hegemon and a rising China among other potentially destabilising trends. Continue reading →