The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Basically, it's talking to them in their own terms to explain why much of what they are saying is wronging. It's telling that economists have this tendency to assume that it's rent seeking by labor that's behind what's going on.
To be fair, it can go either way, but that's why it's vital to go beyond saying, "hey, there's rent seeking behavior shrinking the economy, it must be those damn lazy workers" to accepting the possiblity that it's the exact opposite.
You're right that the global market comes into play, but the phenomenon is happening, but outsourcing to low wage countries is a clear example of where employers are definitely causing a reduction in the wealth of the national society. Because there is no reciprocation from the low wage country in terms of increased trade volume, creating jobs in the developed country.
The object is standard rentseeking behavior, the method is achieved through using trade agreements. Trade can be beneficial, but in order to be so there has to be reciprocation. And that's not what this is all about.
It's about increasing the big boys slice of the pie at a heavy cost to society.
By keeping the critique in economic terms, we force the neo-liberals to defend things that they take to be givens. Such as the presumption that rent seeking is a pathology of labor alone. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
What I'm attempting to do here is a very economics way of going about things. Basically, it's talking to them in their own terms to explain why much of what they are saying is wrong...
Basically, it's talking to them in their own terms to explain why much of what they are saying is wrong...
1) Unless you have the standing of, say, Paul Krugman the supporters of the neo-liberal/neo-classical capitalist economic world view will simply ignore you. "Efficiency" to them concerns the effectiveness with which the policies put money into their own and their employer's pockets, not with how well it enables the economy to function for all. After all, few of their employers even have come close to losing all that they had made in the last 30 years, and they are well positioned to ride out and even profit from an economic collapse.
The goal of these economists now is public relations damage control-- making certain that their wonderful system of wealth extraction survives the winter so that it can feed again next season. Few will be swayed by even the most cogent rational analysis. They know which side of their bread is buttered.
Instead, neo-liberal economics, as it has been presented in the USA since Ronald Reagan, must be thoroughly discredited and made repugnant in the minds of a preponderance of the US population as being the chief implement by which our current misery has been brought upon us.
2) Debating these issues on their terms renders them at best highly arcane if not largely incomprehensible to the vast majority of the population. Most of that population would be outraged at the moral implications and consequences that are routinely accepted as obvious and necessary within the profession as it now exists. I started to explain your "rent seeking" behavior by labor to my wife and she immediately exploded: "But what about "rent seeking" by the CEOs and owners?!!"
What is needed is to accurately translate their terms into language that most can understand and then to show it for what it is. Showing if for what it is in today's context means clearly including the trans-national arrangements and the way the system has been manipulated to the benefit of the wealthy at the cost of everyone else. An angered and aroused public will do the rest.... I hope. :-) "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
What is needed is to accurately translate their terms into language that most can understand and then to show it for what it is. Showing if for what it is in today's context means clearly including the trans-national arrangements and the way the system has been manipulated to the benefit of the wealthy at the cost of everyone else. An angered and aroused public will do the rest.... I hope. :-)
I agree and that's the challenge.
But, part of the reasoning has nothing to do with the masses. It has to do with presenting an argument that is largely contained to academia, but gives scholars simple tools to fight the invasion of econo-think into the study of social phenomenon. Once we put them on the run there, we can carry on the fight to the public.
We have to demystify what's going on. And I tend to think of pies or pizzas. It's an easy metaphor for the whole thing.
So let's say that we have the way that the pie is divided up to start with, but one of the parties wants to increase the size of their slice of the pie. But in doing this, they reduce the size of the pie. Why?
Your wife was right to think immediately, well what about the CEOs, because that's what's happening. And I think that in part it shows just how counter-intuitive the argument that it's workers shrinking the pie. Making them look ridiculous forces them to defend their arguments in real terms, and stop hiding behind the veil of academic authority.
Now, why has the pie shrunk?
That's actually really simple, and it's tied up in the Anglo Disease.
Put money in the hands of people who are living at or near the margin of existence, I'm talking about people who are barely paying their bills, and they will spend the money. Put money in the hands of people who own several homes, and they are going to "invest" it.
In the first case,additional money sets off a whole slew of economic activity. So let's say that the guy working at the factory sees his wages increase at the same time as his productivity does. So his wage goes from $12/hour to $13/hour. He has more money in his pocket, and he feels that he can afford to take his family out to eat, and he leaves a nice tip. So now the waitress who's making $7/hr has more money in her pocket, so she decides that she can afford to buy milk for her kids instead of making them drink kool-aid. So now that money has circulated again, and that's the key of it.
Put money into the hands of people who very little of it, and they will spend it on things that make their live much better. It will circulate multiple times, and each circulation creates value that adds to the value of things being produced by a society.
Now put that money in the hands of someone who's already got a great deal of it, and they will put it away into an investment. And the money does not circulate, the waiter gets no extra tips, the store no increase in milk sales. Instead it takes money from the real economy. It takes more wages from the guy working in the factory, so he hardly ever goes out to eat, and the waitress's kids are going to be drinking kool-aid.
I'm hoping that that places in less academic terms.
I see two goals here.
Then when you've denied them refuge in academic authority, you cut the bastards to bits for the whole world to see. And once you've revealed them for what they are, it's not going to be a few discontents calling their bullshit for what it is, it will the masses prepared for the creation of another world. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
But my approach these days is no longer to attack the existing system - there's no need, it's doing a wonderful job of discrediting itself.
Instead, my strategy is to point out and facilitate as best I can the emerging new alternatives to conventional wisdom and allow people to make their own comparisons. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Money, despite what Pink Floyd had to say on the subject, is not the root of all evil today. Capital is. It's that distinction that Marx makes between industrial and and financial capitalism.
Money simply facilitates transactions, capital requires a return.
I understand what you are saying about the system discrediting itself, but I think that there among the people at the top in the United States, neo-liberalism has become nothing short of a religion.
You have to break their gods, in order from them to get it, because their beliefs are based in faith not reason.
Even people who spout the rhetoric of change, aka the incoming president, are agents of the status quo. Obama is talking about cutting public pensions and healthcare, that hardly strikes me as the sort of change that we need. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
I would say firstly that unsecured credit facilitates transactions, and has a cost consisting of shared system costs and defaults.
Secured credit and conventional Equity in a Corporation are the conflicting financial claims (financial capital) over productive assets (industrial capital) which require a return.
However, this return is paid for from the sale of production/ use value of the relevant productive assets.
Ther is nothing wrong with a cost of credit or a return on capital per se.
The key problem lies in the fact that interest-bearing credit currently is money. The increasing inequalities in access to this credit combine with exclusive ownership of productive assets - and particularly the Commons of land, non-renewable resources and knowledge - to create a continuing and finally unsustainable transfer of wealth. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
What is needed is an intelligent and highly selective repudiation of such debt.
I think it is possible to transform the vast pools of unrepayable property-backed debt to a form of finance which does not have to be repaid ie Equity - just "not Equity as we know it, Jim".
We may achieve this Unitisation within a framework based upon Partnership law (%age shares or "nth's"), rather than Trust law (Units in Unit Trusts) or Company law (conventional shares).
The result is not so much repudiation as transformation.
The holder of distressed (ie unrepayable) debt exchanges his bonds for Units. He has no right to get his capital back from the user of the capital (the Occupier) but he can get some or all of his Capital back from other investors by selling to them his Units in the resulting "Rental Pool".
The amount he gets back depends on the rate of return on Capital investors require.
Since we index-link the Occupier's rental a rate of 2 to 3% is good in the current climate. The crucial point is that because the resulting rental is genuinely "affordable" (in large part because the obligation torepay Capital has been removed) it is therefore more likely it will be paid and the lower risk justifies the lower rate of return. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
We are not in a full employment economy, and beyond the level of effective demand, there is no benefit to employers in hiring more workers, no matter how low a wage they are willing to accept. So the D:L curve should go downward sloping to the quantity of labor for which there is effective demand, and then drop vertically to the L axis.
Drop the wage, and its not inside the diagram that the reduction in the size of the pie occurs, but outside the diagram in the income feedbacks ... the result of the wage suppression is a reduction in effective demand and a leftward shift in D:L.
If unwilling to cure the Anglo disease, the temporary response is therefore to find unsustainable short term arrangements to prop up effective demand, replacing the effective demand lost due to wage suppression. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
But your labor demand curve has the wrong shape for low-wage labor in high-income Anglo Disease nations.
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, can draw a picture for me? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
The result when labor supply intersects within the zone of nil or negligible wage-elasticity of demand for labor is a bargaining range scenario, where there is no technical determinant of position within the wage and relative bargaining power is expected to determine position within the range.
Not all labor markets will be within the bargaining range for the same overall labor market conditions and same minimum wage ... and of course, this does not apply to a full employment economy (and hence does not apply within the standard economic modeling, which assumes from the outset a long-run tendency to full employment), but the empirical results tend to suggest that observed gross elasticity is nil or negligible, so if the partial elasticity is negative, it is offset by a positive income effect. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 2 2 comments
by Oui - Dec 10
by Oui - Dec 9 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3 2 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 21 10 comments
by Oui - Dec 117 comments
by Oui - Dec 96 comments
by Oui - Dec 88 comments
by Oui - Dec 718 comments
by Oui - Dec 54 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 32 comments
by Oui - Dec 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 22 comments
by Oui - Dec 26 comments
by Oui - Dec 114 comments
by Oui - Dec 14 comments
by Oui - Nov 306 comments
by Oui - Nov 289 comments
by Oui - Nov 276 comments
by gmoke - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 268 comments
by Oui - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 2513 comments