So What Should Be Done?
In my first substantive post I suggested not only that perhaps the stimulus had failed, but that we needed to make a major change in our approach, going so far as to suggest that we make a mistake in focusing on fixing the economy right now, rather than focus on changing the fundamentals. To make this explicitly clear, I fundamentally disagree with the following statement by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells:
Given [current] bleak prospect[s], shouldn’t we expect urgency on the part of policymakers and economists, a scramble to put forward plans for promoting growth and restoring jobs? Apparently not: a casual survey of recent books and articles shows nothing of the kind. Books on the Great Recession are still pouring off the presses—but for the most part they are backward-looking, asking how we got into this mess rather than telling us how to get out. To be fair, many recent books do offer prescriptions about how to avoid the next bubble; but they don’t offer much guidance on the most pressing problem at hand (emphasis added), which is how to deal with the continuing consequences of the last one.
No, the most pressing problem is not dealing with the consequences of our last mistake, but changing our behavior so we don’t simply make the same mistakes over and over again. (And on a side note, we once again see Krugman’s rather touching faith in the ability of government policy to save us–the man has simply never applied economic analysis to political behavior, or he’d be somewhat more disillusioned.)
Let me admit up front, that this is an almost impossible task for politicians. Politicians are driven by elections, and the public tends to vote retrospectively, rewarding or punishing them for what has been happening in the year or so before the election, rather than voting prospectively and rewarding them for what is likely to happen in the future as a consequence of their decisions. If ever there was an irrefutable example supporting Bentham’s utilitarian argument that people seek pleasure and avoid pain, it’s the American electorate. Nonetheless, however politically difficult the right path is, we have no hope of getting onto it, or even near it, unless people start preaching its virtues loudly and regularly.
Please note that the following is not meant to be a detailed map. I’m not trying to speak with exquisite precision about what America’s public finance should be over the next X years, but trying to point in a general direction.
Let’s start by noting the recent statement of Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister, Liberal party member Nick Clegg (if you watch the video, this statement begins at around the 8:40 mark).
If you deny you have a problem, and you don’t take action on your deficit, you know what happens? What happens is, you are asking your children, you are asking your kids and your grandchildren to carry on paying off billions of pounds of interest on your debts, on this generation’s debts, money which should be used for their schools and their hospitals in the future.
So, what we’re saying is, look, we have messed up as a generation. We have got to wipe the slate clean for the next generation. It’s very important that we don’t blight future generations because of our failings in this generation.
I want to emphasize that antepenultimate sentence: “We have messed up as a generation.” If Clegg was an American politician saying those words, he’d be just as correct. So how did we mess up, and what do we have to change to get off the messed up track?
1. Balancing the Budget
We have to balance the budget because we can’t borrow ever increasing amounts forever. China, one of our biggest lenders (the biggest lender to the U.S. gov’t is U.S. citizens) recently downgraded our debt. This may be simply a political statement as much or more than a financially justified response, but it’s not a political statement they would dare to make if doubts about the U.S. debt load didn’t exist, so it should be taken as a serious warning. A general downgrading of U.S. debt would make it harder for us to borrow, requiring that we increase interest rates on securities to attract lenders. Additionally, the larger our debt, the larger a portion of our federal budget it becomes, the more it hinders our ability to continue to pay for those programs we want and need.
There are essentially two or three budget elements that are killing us, social programs, defense, and criminal justice.
Social programs
Let’s set aside the issue of whether social programs are inherently good or bad. Personally I tend to be very dubious of many of them, but I just can’t achieve outrage about them when we have presidents claiming authority to completely avoid the rule of law. So let me stipulate for the sake of argument that social programs are legitimate government expenditures. The question is whether we can actually afford them. Keep in mind that the fundamental economic problem is scarcity–i.e., our wants are unlimited, but our ability to pay for them isn’t. The moral goodness of the things we desire is wholly irrelevant to that simple fact, so no matter how morally justified social programs are, we simply can’t afford all of them that people want. The social democratic countries of western Europe have been learning this recently, and have been taking steps to cut back on their generosity, recognizing–as Clegg has done–that it’s simply unsustainable.
Politically we’re not going to get rid of every social welfare program, and I’m not going to make an argument that we should. But we should at the very least get rid of the Medicare prescription drug benefit program. This is a program that may end up costing more than Social Security, but without a dedicated funding mechanism as Social Security has.
Defense Spending
I’m a fairly unabashed foreign policy hawk (although not at all a neo-con), but I can’t defend having a defense budget that is larger than the next, I think, ten countries combined? We need to cut that back radically, eliminate some of our overseas bases, and quit trying to play a military role in every single regional conflict.
Criminal Justice
The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any developed country, and still there are conservatives who say we’re soft on crime. Fine, then, let’s save money by eliminating the courts and the prisons and just appoint our police forces to be judges, juries, and (instantaneous) executioners. OK, let’s not. Rather, let’s decriminalize drugs and stop locking up pot dealers. If there’s a textbook definition of a failed program, it’s our “war” on drugs. It costs like a war and it looks like a war, what with the militarization of the police and our militaristic destabilization of Colombia, but it’s pretty much the war Iraq fought in Kuwait–a massive expenditure for no gain. No, wait, it’s worse than Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, because at least that had some initial success, and a faint hope of long-term victory. The war on drugs has neither of those virtues, but it sure costs us a lot of money, not only in the direct costs, but in increased social welfare caused by having such a large proportion of men who are effectively unable to provide for their families because of their criminal records.
Taxes
In general, we need to keep taxes reasonably low. Economist Alberto Alesina recently reported on a study that compared the economic effects of high spending vs. low taxes.
Our paper looks at the 107 large fiscal adjustments—defined as a cyclically adjusted deficit reduction of at least 1.5% in one year—that took place in 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007. …
Our results were striking: Over nearly 40 years, expansionary adjustments were based mostly on spending cuts, while recessionary adjustments were based mostly on tax increases. … In addition, adjustments based on spending cuts were accompanied by longer-lasting reductions in ratios of debt to GDP.
In the same paper we also examined years of large fiscal expansions, defined as increases in the cyclically adjusted deficit by at least 1.5% of GDP. Over 91 such cases, we found that tax cuts were much more expansionary than spending increases.
So tax cuts are a better bet for the long-term than spending increases. But I still advocate for a bit of a mix of tax increases and spending cut–it seemed to work for both Bush I and Clinton in reducing the deficits of the Reagan era. I would not advocate large tax increases, however. What I think is both an economically defensible and politically viable path is to extend the middle class tax cuts while allowing the upper class tax cuts to expire. Yes, there’ll be a lot of screaming, but the rich would still be paying a lower effective rate than they did a couple generations ago, and I think that rate has proven compatible with solid economic growth.
By the way, for those who critiqued my investor uncertainty thesis, here’s this from Alesina:
How can spending cuts be expansionary? First, they signal that tax increases will not occur in the future, or that if they do they will be smaller. A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes expectations of future tax liabilities. This, in turn, shifts people’s behavior. Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time.
You’re free to disagree, of course. At some level this is a mere appeal to authority. I just want to note, particularly for those who do not yet know me, that on these matters I do tend to rely on the expertise of real economists, rather than just make it up on my own. (Economists disagree among themselves, of course, so we could easily play a game of competing economists, but my point is that I promise you that you can generally rely on my having done some homework on these issue, rather than just speaking off the cuff.)
2. Changing the Expectations
Now to be contrary, there has to be one area where we shake up and reduce investor confidence, and that is that we need to eliminate bailouts. I can provide no solid evidence for this, but I have become persuaded that a fundamental part of our continuing economic problem is the moral hazard created by the near certainty of government bailouts for large failing firms. The “too big to fail” phenomenon has to be countered. The Obama administration (and the Fed) actually exacerbated this problem by bailing out a number of large firms, and by consolidating failed banks with surviving ones to actually increase the net size of the remaining banks. If the reason it was necessary to bail out the banks was because the collapse of any one of them might have sent irreversible shock waves through the financial sector, causing a wholesale financial collapse (which I think was a reasonable possibility, and so the fear of it was well placed), then further increasing that fundamental fragility was a move of astonishing short-sightedness.
That’s not just true of banks. Many people are now touting GM’s looming IPO–optimism about which has grown markedly in recent weeks–as evidence of the wisdom of the bailouts. After all, a complete collapse of GM would have indisputably have sent Michigan into a Depression-level economic freefall (as if things aren’t bad enough here already). But GM’s far from out of the woods. The bailout and bankruptcy has allowed them to improve their cost structure, and they have wisely eliminated some brands. But the question remains as to whether they’re going to be able to change their corporate culture, which was the real problem. Astonishingly, they spent years selling cars at a loss just to maintain market share, rather than focusing on a profitable niche. Have they really changed? It’s possible, but far from certain. We also helped bail out Chrysler, and that’s the second time we’ve had to do that. Clearly the first bailout of Chrysler was not a true success, unless we count struggling through until the next bailout to constitute a successful business.
We’ve been through this before, with the S&L bailout. The S&L problem was created by changing the rules governing them so that they could be more aggressive in making loans, seeking higher rates of return, but still insuring investors’ deposits. The result is fairly predictable–it’s like buying your 16 year old a car and saying, don’t worry, if anything happens to it I’ll buy you a new one.
We need to develop the cojones to let businesses fail, even big ones. We need people to suffer for their mistakes, so that they are more cautious in their future decisions. Instead of seeking the next economic boom, we need to condition ourselves to looking for steady, not spectacular, economic growth.
The problem for government is that even if it tries to signal that it won’t rescue any more large firms, it has trouble establishing credible commitment–that is, really making people believe it. We all know that the next election could bring in someone unwilling to abide by predecessors’ promises, and we all know that the prospect of re-election can pressure even the promise-maker to renege. The difficulty of democratic governments establishing credible commitment is one of the important lessons from the field of public choice theory.
3. Odds and Ends
We need to consider something like the proposed Economic Responsibility act proposed for Britain by Eamonn Butler:
This briefing calls on the next government to pass an Economic Responsibility Act, which would place legally binding restraints on government’s fiscal policies. Specifically, it would: (1) cap government spending at one-third of GDP; (2) cap the budget deficit at 3% of GDP; (3) cap the national debt at 40% of GDP; (4) require that off-balance-sheet obligations were fully calculated and openly stated; and (5) allow government to borrow only to invest in capital projects, not to fund current expenditure. This briefing also recommends that new rules be introduced to limit government’s ability to raise taxes.
Those details can certainly be quibbled with. I won’t make any pretense of being expert enough to take a stand on any specific GDP figures, but the general concept of such target is, I believe, a good one. I do definitely agree with #4 (fully calculating and openly stating, rather than hiding, off-balance-sheet obligations) and #5 (borrowing only for capital projects, not for funding of current expenditures–even though money is fungible, this would still help constrain debt so that it correlates with investment projects, not simply supporting day-to-day operations).
Do I expect any of this to happen? No, not even if the Republicans take over the whole government in 2012. While our politicians speak about the need to make changes, they refuse to get serious about actually specifying any. Witness the post-election posturing of John Boehner, who spent the campaign season demanding spending cuts, but then refused to publicly suggest any, sloughing that responsibility off on the president because “the president sets the agenda.” That’s not an entirely false statement, but you know damn well Boehner’s efforts over the next two years are going to be to absolutely obstruct Obama’s agenda, so he’s not really taking the president’s agenda-setting capacity seriously, he’s just using it as cover for his own fear of taking the lead.
And conservatives, despite their public claims to being fiscally responsible, have not shown any inclination toward fiscal responsibility in more than a quarter century. Although the Democrats controlled much of Congress throughout Reagan’s presidency, not only did they sometimes actually reduce the deficits of his proposed budgets, but he passed his budgets with a combination of Republicans and conservative southern Democrats–the boll weevils who would mostly jump to the Republican Party after that party’s 1994 takeover of the House. Shallow political commentators (George Will has done this) continue to criticize the Democratic liberals for the actions of those southern dems (especially their obstruction of civil rights), but sophisticated and honest political observers know that it is the ideological position that counted, not the party label. They were conservatives as Democrats, and they’re conservatives now as Republicans (in fact they’re responsible for the disturbing right-ward shift of the Republican Party).
It was a conservative president who pushed through the budget destroying Medicare prescription drug program (although to be fair, many congressional conservatives were not supportive, and it required the support of liberals to pass). And it was conservatives who used 9/11 as justification to ratchet up discretionary non-defense spending like mad between 2002 and 2006.
Republicans as a group aren’t serious about cutting government expenditures. They’re only interested in cutting spending on things the Democrats want and shifting it to the things they want.
But if we want to give ourselves better future economic prospects, we need to take our medicine now and bring our budgets down to a manageable level. It may take a constitutional amendment to make this happen, as whatever good rules Congress sets up–like the former pay as you go rules–they can just override with a simple majority vote. That is, Congress literally cannot discipline itself, and the public gives no evidence of wanting to discipline it in regular elections, so constitutional disciplines may be our only prospect for substantive change.
Obviously any proposal like this can’t hope to be accepted without objection. Paul Krugman has presumptively responded even without reading me (without even, I’m sure, being aware of my existence). And politicians in both parties have already signaled their refusal to consider such fundamental changes. Based on the response to my prior post (and what a different crowd this is than I’m used to from my time at Positive Liberty and The One Best Way!), I’m sure many here will have objections, too. Well, I’m out of town for the rest of the week, and won’t be able to respond. So have at it. Feel free to give it to me with the bark on.
“But we should at the very least get rid of the Medicare prescription drug benefit program. This is a program that may end up costing more than Social Security, but without a dedicated funding mechanism as Social Security has.”
And in turn I think we also may want to think seriously about patent law reform, which may in turn drive down the cost of meds.Report
I’m sure it would.
We could totally make every drug that currently exists something that must be sold at the cost of production.
This would make most drugs available for the 4/bucks for a month price, 10 bucks for 3 months pricing that generics currently see.
And we won’t have to worry about new drugs either.Report
Great. Are you going to also require that the FDA automatically approve any drug submitted to it? The price of drugs mostly goes into repaying the costs of the clinical trials.Report
> The price of drugs mostly goes into repaying the costs of the
> clinical trials.
Nitpick: the price of drugs mostly goes into paying the costs of aggregated new drug development (which is not a universally successful affair).
We’re also the ones indirectly subsidizing most new drug development for the rest of the world, since drug manufacturers don’t set their prices in one market, and most drugs are cheaper other places than they are here, so most of the cost recovery comes out of our pockets. This is made much more difficult as some countries with very large markets also don’t give a crap about our IP laws, and thus they can make whatever they like there and undercut the open market price.Report
I’ve never seen any proof of this argument, or that drugs are somehow much cheaper everywhere outside of America (they enforce patent laws in most of the OECD, for example).Report
Google Scholar will give you what you’re looking for.
http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/news/en/Submission5.pdf
http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/4/883.short
Look up the cost of anti-viral drugs or anti-malaria drugs in third world countries, or just read, for example, Glaxo-Smith-Klein’s financial statements (http://www.gsk.com/investors/reps09/GSK-Report-2009-full.pdf). Actually any large pharmaceutical consolidate financial reports is going to tell you the same thing.
The risk section includes, among other things:
Weakness of intellectual property protection in
certain countries
In some of the countries in which the Group operates, patent
protection may be significantly weaker than in the USA or the
European Union. Some developing countries have reduced,
or threatened to reduce, effective patent protection for
pharmaceutical products generally, or in particular therapeutic
areas, to facilitate early competition within their markets from
generic manufacturers. Any loss of patent protection, including
reducing the scope of patent rights or compulsory licensing, could
materially and adversely affect the Group’s financial results in those
national markets but is not expected to be material to the Group
overall. Absence of adequate patent protection could limit the
opportunity to look to such markets for future sales growth.
Governmental and payer controls
Pharmaceutical products are subject to price controls or pressures
and other restrictions in many markets, including Japan, Germany,
Spain, France and Italy. Some governments intervene directly in
setting prices.
In addition, in some markets major purchasers of pharmaceutical
products (whether governmental agencies or private health care
providers) have the economic power to exert substantial pressure
on prices or the terms of access to formularies.
The Group cannot accurately predict whether existing controls,
pressures or restrictions will increase or whether new controls,
pressures or restrictions will be introduced. Such measures may
materially and adversely affect the Group’s ability to introduce
new products profitably and its financial results.
For example, in the USA, where the Group has its highest margins
and the most sales for any country, pricing pressures could
significantly increase as experience continues to develop under
the outpatient pharmaceutical programme covering Medicare
beneficiaries that began in 2006. Also, changes to the related
enabling legislation could afford the US government a direct role
in negotiating prices under the Medicare programme.Report
“Yes, there’ll be a lot of screaming, but the rich would still be paying a lower effective rate than they did a couple generations ago, and I think that rate has proven compatible with solid economic growth.”
I’m not sure you can count the tech-bubble and the housing bubble as solid economic growth — some people made out well, but the gains of many were not solid and now we’re going through a major adjustment. I have a feeling that until we can get to real, sustainable production and the creation of new wealth, not pretend money, or not money gained by refinancing a home, we’re going to see steady decline. A policy of very low taxes and absence of heavy regulation, especially removing the barriers to energy production, will attract investment from around the world, because we still have a favorable business environment in comparison to other countries, and a human rights/worker advantage to China. If we concentrate on economic means and severely limit political means, we can create new wealth, and even those now in poverty will be much better off. A prosperous America has always been a generous, compassionate America.Report
I’m sitting looking out my window at ground zero of the tech bubble. I see plenty of solid, real, accumulated capital out there.Report
I’m not sure you can count the tech-bubble and the housing bubble as solid economic growth
Housing bubble certainly not, since all that happened was a temporary inflation in the valuation of houses. The 90’s created a lot of real wealth, unless you think that there’s no value in all the things you can do on the Intertubes.Report
Moreover, real wages did -finally- start rising in the second half of the 1990s, if I remember right, including at the bottom (where they’d been declining since the 1970s).Report
Can’t tell how serious you are being; it’s the new drugs where this would be problematic. We want to give cancer and AIDS patients, among others, cutting edge therapy which may be based on old stuff, but with some new tweaks. The new tweaks make the entire drug patentable for 20 years. That means new cutting edge drugs will NEVER go generic.
I know a lot of libertarians don’t believe in IP rights in principle. I haven’t thought thru this completely. But most defenders of capitalism most certainly DO defend IP rights in principle as necessary to bring this stuff to market.Report
“I can’t defend having a defense budget that is larger than the next, I think, ten countries combined?”
If we didn’t have a defense budget of that size, then someone would seriously think they could beat us in a stand-up fight, and the result of *that* would be *much* more expensive than the defense budget we’ve got now.Report
“Where is this Count Rugen, that I might kill him?”
Who is this mysterious someone who thinks they can transport an effective military force across one of two oceans unopposed to attack us with military equipment that is effectively a collection of our castoffs (without the spare parts)?
Or are you saying that other countries may become embroiled in military action against each other, since we won’t be standing behind them with a big stick telling them that’s a no-no?
If the second, two immediate questions arise: should we care… and, even if we do care, how effective a deterrent is the U.S., really? It certainly didn’t stop Iraq from invading Kuwait. It didn’t stop civil war in numerous other locations. It didn’t stop the attack on 9/11. If the opposing state isn’t going to engage in conventional warfare, they don’t really have that much to fear from a conventional force, do they?Report
“If the second, two immediate questions arise: should we care… and, even if we do care, how effective a deterrent is the U.S., really? It certainly didn’t stop Iraq from invading Kuwait. ”
Ho, ho, ho. April Glaspie *told* Saddam Hussein that the US wouldn’t respond if Iraq invaded Kuwait.Report
Do you mean a foreign war or an invasion? If you mean, an invasion, the logistics involved in invading the United States are would be staggering if the army were a 10th of its size and why would you even do it? You’d be left with a lot of very pissed off people, and a devastated wasteland, which would be useful for …. ?
If you mean a foreign war, my question is why do we care? Its not like our recent victories have been terribly effective – democracies estalished – 0, terrorist organizations eliminated – 0, people now very angry with us who quite liked us before – 59.6 million. Way to go with that.Report
Everybody likes to be liked, but that’s not the nature of our foreign policy challenges and it’s dangerous to think it is.
For example, we all know that Iran is dangerous as potentially holding nuclear weapons. There’s been a lot of back and forth of whether Iran will bomb Israel or vice versa. But there’s going to be a lot of Muslim states, where the US is not necessarily very popular, who nonetheless hope that Israel or the US can either stop the Iranian nuclear threat or provide meaningful guarantees against it. If we refuse (and maybe we should) we have to be able to deal with the consequences of nuclear weapons proliferating everywhere, or the entire Middle East being sucked into Iran’s hegemony, or both.Report
You say that as though there weren’t a massive US military presence in Western Europe from 1950 to 1990.Report
“No, the most pressing problem is not dealing with the consequences of our last mistake, but changing our behavior so we don’t simply make the same mistakes over and over again. “
Right. This is why, IMO, we have to be able to look at our chances of real recovery in terms of being able to punish liberals for the frame of mind that led us into the problem in the first place. This makes things more difficult that they appear at first glance.
Reagan once said you can do almost anything in politics if you don’t care who gets the credit. Unfortunately I don’t think we’re in a position to operate that way.Report
James,
On taxes and spending I basically agree with you, although I’d probably be a bit more radical. I think the Simpson-Bowles report was essentially a long the right lines – the keys are broaden the tax base and eliminate tax expenditures, cut back on medicare and medicaid for the elderly, tweak social security and force defense to make real cuts. In my fantasy tax and spending system, congress would delegate control over tax bands and rates to an independent fiscal agency that set them to pay for congress’s proposed spending over the economic cycle. Not, of course, ever really going to happen in reality.
I do disagree with you about the bailouts though. Or rather, I agree that we should not bail out banks, but you underestimate the difficulty of not doing so. During a boom, its easy to say that investment banks will be allowed to fail, but no-one has any incentive to stop them taking on risk and above all counterparty risk that will cause a disaster if one of them were to go down. After all, financial profit comes from risk, and during the boom, everyone shares in the banks’ profits. But when a crisis comes, regulators are faced with what is basically a protection racket “nice financial system you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it, of course for a small consideration …”.
So its all very well to say we won’t bail out banks, but we’re faced with a commitment problem – the banks basically won’t believe us and will carry on doing what they’re doing, because this is what has always happened, everywhere, and they know it. As Simon Johnson pointed out during the crisis, if the US were a developing country the IMF would try to force regulators to behave better, but the US controls the reserve currency and that makes all the difference – the IMF has no influence. Short of putting it in the constitution and forcing the supreme court to surrender all their financial assets I don’t see what you can do about this. Even then it would be touch and go – no-one wants to be responsible for letting the evil villain blow up the world, even if paying them off will only encourage future evil villains to try it …
The only solution to this I can see is regulatory – you can force the banks to be smaller, you can force them to control their capital ratios and risk exposure, you can force them to arrange for their own orderly resolution, you can force them to pay into a fund like the FDIC that has the power to use that money to wind them up, you can force them to issue convertible debt. But all of these measures meet huge resistance because anything that reduces risk exposure reduces bank profits and the banks have enormous leverage over congress – I consider myself quite cynical, but I was actually shocked to hear Republican congress-critters arguing against forcing the banks to pay for their own orderly resolution on the grounds that it was a “bailout”.Report
“I consider myself quite cynical, but I was actually shocked to hear Republican congress-critters arguing against forcing the banks to pay for their own orderly resolution on the grounds that it was a “bailout”.”
IIRC, the GOP opposed the financial regulation bill on just the ground you mentioned earlier, ie, that the there was no credibility that the wind down authority would actually be used.Report
Simon–I haven’t had a chance to actually read the Simpson report, so I didn’t feel comfortable going into its details. But, yes, I agree with them in principle as well. Even if I object to some details of it when I get a chance to really peruse it, I think it would be foolish to do as Pelosi (and others, on both sides of the aisle) have done and begin drawing lines in the sand this quickly.
I don’t think I do underestimate the difficulty of not bailing out banks, although I probably didn’t express it as forcefully as I could have. Harder than snow-shoeing in the Bahamas, and as risky as skydiving into an active volcano.
I’ve previously pondered your point about how the IMF would react if we were a developing country. I almost used the phrase “austerity measures.” I’m sure President Obama would prefer to speak to a Tea Party gathering before he’d want to hear that phrase used. But it is more or less what we’re suggesting, no?Report
James – On the Simpson-Bowles report, I suspect the chairmen know what they’re doing, and knew what the response from both sides would be. It was hugely predictable after all and the general reception, even from the mainstream media, has been quite positive. They weren’t under any obligation to release their preliminary report, so they must be trying to bounce their own committee into action.
I don’t think what we’re talking about is quite austerity measures in the classic sense that, say, Ireland faces – there’s no serious risk of the US being unable to service its debt or even of having to pay higher rates if it issues more (yields down again to today), so nothing is really forcing the US into austerity. The US has considerable freedom to devalue the dollar and/or issue more debt if it needs to because of the dollar’s unique position in the exchange rate system – the US has essentially no foreign currency liabilities and anyone who wants to control their exchange rate has to buy dollar denominated assets. As we’re seeing right now, its quite hard to devalue the dollar even if you try. The trouble with all this is that at some point all that debt and outstanding currency becomes a liability for the US taxpayer and consumer, either as higher taxes or as inflation – not now and probably not any time soon, but some day. This is really the best argument for fixing the budget deficit – to allow the US to move the dollar away from its central role in the exchange rate system and therefore to a position where it can truly float rather than being chased by everyone else.Report
Simon, you’re exactly right about the dynamics of bailouts.. We simply cannot credibly commit not to save the system from total collapse when the time comes. Beyond that there is the fact that those who take on (what they think to be non-)excessive risk have exhibited a pattern of truly convincing themselves that they are doing so not because their downside is covered by the society, but because they’ve convinced themselves that this time, they’ve truly figured out the way they can get the returns while substantially limiting the real risk of ruin. There’s no reason to expect that over time this pattern will not continue. This is why Simon Johnson is so unequivocal about his view that the financial institutions must be broken up and insulated from each other as much as possible, i.e. ending TBTF. Of course, finance will always be interconnected and vulnerable to systemic collapse under extreme and pervasive enough circumstances, but allowing handful of institutions whose failure will guarantee immediate systemic collapse to remain in existence is simply asking for repeated crisis, and constitutes an implied guarantee of bailout in case of crisis regardless of expressed government policy, or even of legal limitations.Report
> So its all very well to say we won’t bail out banks, but we’re faced with
> a commitment problem – the banks basically won’t believe us and
> will carry on doing what they’re doing, because this is what has always
> happened, everywhere, and they know it.
This isn’t an insurmountable problem, really.
Financial institutions engage in risky behavior because it is rewarded extremely well in the short run and in the long run the risk is covered by the U.S. taxpayer. Okay, I’m somewhat willing to let that be the case… to an extent. You eliminate the moral hazard problem by returning the *individual risk* back on the bank’s management, who were the ones calling the shots.
If your FDIC-insured financial institution is under-capitalized and requires a bailout, by a *legally predefined* limit for capitalization, you lose, the Fed takes over the bank.
Malfeasance by a lower member of the company? That’s rough, too bad, your audit procedures by definition weren’t good enough. All options and other forms of compensation are revoked, any stock in the corporation owned by the board is returned as treasury stock, any golden parachute is canceled, and you’re fucking fired. No financial institution that is covered by FDIC insurance can hire you again, you’re done.
Yes, you’ll still see some shenanigans as you’ve raised the penalty stick bar higher, so the aversion to getting caught is going to be much higher. But on the whole, banks would get either much more conservative, or would spin off their FDIC-ensured functions into very conservative entities and let the financial wizards do their thing in non-FDIC backed ways.
This, admittedly, doesn’t help the TBTF claim of automotive giants or investment portfolios or whatnot, but it’s a step.Report
Right. But Goldman, Lehman, Bear etc are/were not insured by the FDIC because they don’t take retail deposits. FDIC insured institutions haven’t really been a big problem because most of their capital is insured deposits and when they fail the FDIC just walks in at 5pm one Friday and says “you’re done” and that’s it. Investment banks are where TBTF is a problem, because there is no wind-up procedure except bankruptcy and in bankruptcy the bank’s liabilties would plummet in value making the wind-up next to impossible.
The problem is indeed not insurmountable from a policy perspective. Ideas abound, actually. The problem is getting those ideas through congress and preventing risk seeping out of the regulated system into the unregulated system. The reasons Lehman etc ended up absorbing all that risk, after all, is that the FDIC-insured banks wanted the return but couldn’t hold the risk on their own books.Report
You’ve done a bang-up job of advocating that the purpose of a society is to ensure that the wealthiest members remain untroubled at all costs. Other people take a fundamentally different approach to society. They believe that providing adequate medical care to all citizens is a birthright and that a generational promise to care for the elderly is worth making.
I admire your honesty if not your goals. My beef with the Republican party these days is that they’re perfectly happy to promise the low tax bit. But when it comes to major cuts in SS, Medicare/aid or defense, somehow not one penny of those programs can be cut. (Oddly enough, Republicans even attack Democrats’ rolling-back of Medicare Advantage, a provably inefficient program, and the new programs in the ACA to fund research into evidence-based medicine.)Report
“They believe that providing adequate medical care to all citizens is a birthright and that a generational promise to care for the elderly is worth making.”
Promises that the folk Marxists feel quite comfortable making since for the most part they have no intention of paying for them themselves.
This last health care battle illustrates this quite concretely. Why do we want to promise free or subsidized health care to all citizens if health care for the elderly is already wrecking us? Clearly there is nothing imminent to suggest that we are going to renege or modify our commitment to senior citizens health care. The only way the Obama plan or anything like it makes sense is if the cost of that commitment is considered somebody else’s problem, leaving the current Demo political establishment free to create new entitlements.Report
Koz: If you forebear from calling me a folk Marxist, I won’t call you an ignorant fascist sociopathic plutocrat. The fact of the matter is that every single industrialized country manages to deliver comparable care to almost 100% of their people at a fraction of the cost that the US incurs.
There will always be people at the bottom of the income ladder; the societal question is whether these people get adequate care or not. You are perfectly entitled to hold the position that they should not if they cannot afford it out of pocket. But you don’t get to make the factual claim that providing them care will bankrupt the country — that’s a provably false statement of fact.Report
“Koz: If you forebear from calling me a folk Marxist, I won’t call you an ignorant fascist sociopathic plutocrat.”
I sympathize with you a little bit, but unfortunately for your point, I am not an ignorant fascist sociopathic plutocrat, but you are a folk Marxist. Ie, from your comments above it’s pretty clear you are an adherent of folk Marxism, the idea that the private capital base is in general available for open-ended politically or socially favored uses.
As far as being able to afford medical care for everybody, again that seems very dubious to me considering the havoc that our commitment to medical care for senior citizens is already causing. But then again, you assured us that the contrary was a provably false statement of fact, so by all means go ahead and prove it.Report
If you google “health care spending percentage gdp” you can get thousands of useful links. According to this site, the Medicare trustees calculated that health spending hit 17.3% of GDP in 2009 in the US. According to the OECD (data here) the next closest country, France, runs its health care system (which covers everyone and therefore does not impose the healthcare job lock that the US does) at 11% of GDP.
You would rather have low taxes than give everyone decent healthcare. You sound more like a sociopathic plutocrat than I do a Marxist. It’s what you are; wear the label proudly.Report
“According to this site, the Medicare trustees calculated that health spending hit 17.3% of GDP in 2009 in the US. According to the OECD (data here) the next closest country, France, runs its health care system (which covers everyone and therefore does not impose the healthcare job lock that the US does) at 11% of GDP.”
No, no, no. This is an argument for something else, ie that the American economy is large enough, on a GDP basis, to fund a program to designed to give free medical services to all Americans. Or (and this is just as important), that such a program if it did exist actually would do that.
You don’t attempt to argue (for good reason) that we could afford such a program or that we could implement one. I might be able to live without heat perfectly well in San Diego. But it doesn’t follow that I can live without heat in Alaska, or Antarctica.
Even your narrow GDP argument, and allowing for some quasi-French estimate of cost, still depends on the denominator either increasing or remaining relatively stable. If the last couple of years have taught us anything, we should know that is by no means guaranteed.Report
Try to keep up. Can we, as a nation, afford healthcare for everyone? Yes. Every single other industrialized country does it, at a sizeable reduction (on a GDP basis) than the US does. Do we have the political will to do it? PPACA was a major step in that direction. But conservatives, oddly enough, seem inclined to keep the basic structure of PPACA yet gut precisely those provisions intended to reduce the growth of long-term costs. We’ll see if they have the votes.
ps: Marxist does not equal socialist.Report
“Can we, as a nation, afford healthcare for everyone? Yes.”
Who’s we, kemosabe? We, as a nation, can fund a program that intended to provide medical services for everybody, only if the political class can extract enough out of the private capital base to do it, as if it were discretionary money in its own pocket.
We can actually implement such a program if we have that and a hundred other things.
The health care bill costs a lot more than money. (Or a less elegantly, it costs money in many other ways that the federal government expenditures which fund the program).Report
Francis, I live in a Communist country (Canada) and what I’ve found is this: My wife’s business brings in a decent amount of money, which is heavily taxed. Her chronic illness requires a decent amount of drugs, which are paid for by the state, through those taxes. Compared to the same situation in the US, we have less money after taxes than we would there, but more money after taxes and getting her drugs than if we’d paid for health insurance. In the end, we come out with more money. So I see the benefits.
However, the real issue here is that drugs- and every other health service- cost considerably less in Canada. The state is paying and so the state is setting the prices. The Obama health care plan does nothing about this- which is the real problem in the US- instead, you have the state helping to pay costs that are higher than anywhere else. If I break my leg in the US, it costs my insurance company (or me) over twice as much to get it fixed as it costs the state in Canada. Everything is like this. So, in order for the US to afford to pay for health care through the state, reform has to start with the idea of the state setting prices, which I’m guessing would be a hard sell in the states.
Finally, socialist does not equal Marxist, but Marxism was a theory about the historical inevitability of socialism and the inevitable doom of capitalism. So, in that sense, Marxism is socialist.Report
words have meaning. Canada is in no way, shape or form Communist. It is, like the US, Western Europe and a chunk of the rest of the world, a mixed economy, with capitalist, regulated capitalist and socialist aspects.
The reason that the political class has a claim on your pocketbook, Koz, is your status as a tax-paying citizen. If you don’t like it, you have three choice: complain, get the law changed or leave. (no, not Somalia. Someplace a lot more agreeable. But as soon as you find a country that imposes lower taxes, greater regulatory freedom and an equivalent quality of life, let me know. Last I checked, the US has the lowest tax and regulatory burden of any industrial state.)
The Brits managed to elect a government that is actually proposing to roll back some of the most egregious aspects of the security state. It should be interesting to see if any Tea Partiers are actually libertarians. (I have my doubts; there’s an astonishing tolerance for authoritarianism in this country.)Report
Yes words have meaning. Sometimes I use those words ironically, or even just to get a cheap laugh.Report
You should be more clear who you’re responding to. Your post is in reply to Rufus but not topical to anything he wrote.
“If you don’t like it, you have three choice: complain, get the law changed or leave.”
People with discretionary capital have quite a few more choices than that. In particular, they can slow down or stop their economic activity, they can pursue economic activity in the black market outside of the government’s ability to tax it, and they can also hold ownership interest in economic activity in another jurisdiction, again outside the government’s reach of taxation.
In any case, it is a very dubious assumption that the government can collect the anticipated amount of revenue just because they pass a tax.
“The Brits managed to elect a government that is actually proposing to roll back some of the most egregious aspects of the security state. It should be interesting to see if any Tea Partiers are actually libertarians. (I have my doubts; there’s an astonishing tolerance for authoritarianism in this country.)”
And for this one, you’re replying to nobody.Report
It’s a largely meaningless statement from an organization that had its request to rate credit in the US denied.
Your positions are contradictory. You call yourself an “unabashed foreign policy hawk”, but then call for cuts that would undermine that.
What we need is a strategic re-assessment of what roles we want our military to play, and then a cutting/re-drawing of the military to fit that. The goals determine the funding, and changing the funding without the goals is a good way to screw up a military and foreign policy tied to it.
Credible commitment is a huge problem, credibility is very hard to regain once lost.
The best thing I an think of is some kind of poison pill, whereby policy makers suffer some personal loss for bailing out firms. You’d have to write it into the Constitution, and I can’t imagine a scenario whereby it could garner the support of the politicians it seeks to constrain.Report
“We need to develop the cojones to let businesses fail, even big ones. We need people to suffer for their mistakes, so that they are more cautious in their future decisions. Instead of seeking the next economic boom, we need to condition ourselves to looking for steady, not spectacular, economic growth.”
Not only should these businesses be allowed to fail so that people are more cautious in their future decisions, but this is the natural cycle of things. The current reigning generation (which I imagine is the first generation in history that has successfully stolen from both the previous AND the next generation), needs to pass the torch to youth and its youthful ideas if we’re to make real progress.
“Instead of seeking the next economic boom, we need to condition ourselves to looking for steady, not spectacular, economic growth.”
There is a certain natural continuity of essential momentum of the economy that Keynesian policies essentially deny the existence of. If 40% of our time is spent in policy-derived booms, the busts are going to be just that much more spectuacular as the economy tries to move back into a natural equilibrium.Report
I can’t argue with much of what you lay out. In each case I tend to agree with what you propose from taxes to criminal justice, etc. It certainly wouldn’t be any worse than the status quo I don’t think, so at the very least it would provide an interesting experiment.
The only think I’m still confused about, a carry over from your last post in fact, is:
“We have to balance the budget because we can’t borrow ever increasing amounts forever. ”
We certainly can’t borrow increasing amounts forever. But that seems like a case for reforming the budged of a certain time period. Is that time period 5 years, 10, 30?
I might have missed it if you already addressed this point, in which case I apologize for my lack of attention. But what has made deficits the seeming disaster of our time?
4 years ago deficits were not on most people’s minds. Then the economy tanked, for reasons, as far as I can tell, only indirectly related if at all to deficits. Now unemployment seems to be the major problem, but all of the talk is about deficits.
So my questions would be, how was the economy’s pitfall directly related to government deficits, are deficits a much more serious problem in the short term (and how would you define this short term) than unemployment, do they bear a relationship such that negative deficits would greatly increase the demand for labor?
On the issue of uncertainty, your admitted appeal to authority while a convenient stand in for a more full fledged argument, is not quiet the “homework” that demonstrates rigor or is convincing. While I’m sure the homework is done on your part, and I mean no offense, I think the issue of “uncertainty” is the most crucial point going forward, and a one that is so metaphysical in nature and so quasi-psychological that it is easily debated without reference to numbers.
Of all the unprovable theories, why chose the one that dictates “uncertainty” as the culprit, over other equally fleshed out ones.
What is the best argument you can offer for why any given time X is more uncertain than any given time Y. Or is it not nominal certainty, but only whether people “believe” there is relative certainty that is important. The lead up to the financial disaster seems like pretty good evidence for why egging people on to believe things are more stable/certain then they are is not always a great strategy in the long run, despite it’s profitability in the short term.Report