Growth vs Equitable Growth

Posted on May 29, 2015 by jackheidel

There is a huge debate going on in political and policy circles between the advocates of increasing economic growth and the advocates of increasing income equality. I generally argue that the best way to increase income equality is to increase economic growth overall.
I have just come across a series of articles from the Nov/Dec 2014 issue of the American Monthly, “American Life: an investor’s guide ,” which are sponsored by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a progressive Think Tank. The fact that this group is focused on equitable growth, rather than the narrower goal of income equality, is of great interest to me.
They advocate a number of things that I agree with such as:

The incredible importance of early childhood healthcare and education.
Improving K-12 education, especially in low-income areas.
Providing much more vocational education and apprenticeship programs.
Running a “high pressure” economy in order to tighten the labor market. They recognize that lower unemployment leads to higher wages (see above).
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit especially for workers without children.

The authors want to “pressurize” the economy with a more stimulative fiscal policy which means increased deficit spending, a very bad idea in my opinion. Much better ways to boost the economy are with policies such as tax reform, trade expansion, immigration reform and regulatory relaxation.
Yes, there is a high degree of income inequality and yes, it’s getting worse over time. But, as Warren Buffett says, the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. The best way to help the poor is to make them more productive. That is exactly the purpose of the policies enumerated above.

Economics Is a National Security Issue

Posted on May 27, 2015 by jackheidel

“Speak softly and carry a big stick” President Theodore Roosevelt, 1900

There are many foreign policy issues facing the U.S. at the present time:

Russia is stirring up unrest in Eastern Europe by threatening the independence of Moldova and the Ukraine as well as several NATO countries.
The Middle East is in turmoil stirred up by ISIS and the effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
China is working hard to assert dominance in East Asia.

The world is more stable when there is a single dominant power such as the U.S.. If the U.S. retreats from this role, it is inevitable that regional powers such as Russia, China and Iran will assert themselves to take up the slack. We don’t need to act as the world’s policeman every time a problem flares up around the world. But democracies are better actors on the world stage than are autocracies. Therefore the whole world benefits when the U.S. projects power and interest.
A column in today’s Wall Street Journal by Michele Flournoy and Richard Fontaine makes a very important point, namely that “Economic Growth Is a National Security Issue.” In other words, the stronger is our economy, the more influence and respect we will enjoy in our relations with other countries. Especially they recommend emphasizing:

Trade and Investment. It looks like Congress will give the President trade-promotion authority for negotiating a Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement. Indian, African and European trade agreements could then follow.
Energy. The ban on the export of crude oil and natural gas should be lifted.
International Institutions. A Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be much less of a threat to the U.S. one a TPP trade agreement goes into effect.

Ms. Flournoy and Mr. Fontaine are focused here on international economic growth. But all economic growth, domestic as well as international, will make the U.S. stronger and therefore better able to project power.
Conclusion: we need to focus more strongly on economic growth in all of its guises!

Are Economics and Social Progress Related to Each Other?

Posted on May 25, 2015 by jackheidel

“Your (last post) is one of the most active and positive that I have read of yours. You do put your time to where your values are. Those of us who see you as too economically focused and ourselves as more humanely concerned need to act as well. Thanks for your focus and attention.”
from a reader of my blog

I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. The primary reason I write this blog is because I am so concerned about the fiscal recklessness of our national leaders. Our national debt is much too large and still growing too fast. We need to either cut spending or raise taxes (or do both).
But I am also a social progressive. I voted in favor of Nebraska raising its minimum wage last fall. I support gay marriage as a civil right. I support having Nebraska expand Medicaid in order to cover more low-income people (where Medicaid needs to be fixed is at the federal level).
There is in fact a very close connection between having a sound economy and social progress. As the above chart shows, the U.S. ranks very high in both GDP per person and social progress. All of the countries which are most socially progressive also have sound economies. This is not a coincidence.
My last post talks about what society can do to help blacks improve their socio-economic status. This includes improving educational opportunity in the inner city. But improved educational opportunity needs to be closely directed toward improved economic opportunity. This means, for example, having good jobs available for new high school and community college graduates. But this, in turn, means having strong economic growth with intelligent tax and regulatory policies to encourage entrepreneurship and business expansion.
In short, a sound economy is essential for social progress.

Can We Do More to Help Blacks Improve Their Lot?

Posted on May 21, 2015 by jackheidel

Nebraska is a progressive state in many respects. Last fall we raised our state minimum wage. The Nebraska Legislature is now on the verge of eliminating the death penalty. Seven years ago the Legislature established the Learning Community in metro Omaha, whose purpose is to eliminate the academic achievement gap between children from the middle class and those living in low-income families.
I am an elected member of the Learning Community Coordinating Council which oversees the work of the LC. As such I give a lot of thought to the plight of the low-income black community in north Omaha. My own answer to the question in the title is yes, of course, there is more we can do but it needs to be carefully directed. I have written several previous posts on this topic. Here and here.
For example, the Hamilton Project has an excellent program, ”Policies to Address Poverty in America,” which calls for a highly focused effort along the lines of:

Promoting Early Childhood Development
Supporting Disadvantaged Youth
Building Skills
Improving the Safety Net and Work Support

Mr. Robert Balfanz, the Director of the Everyone Graduates Center at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, suggests focusing on the toughest 660 out of 12,600 high schools in the U.S. which fully one-half of non-graduating students attend. More specifically:

Refocus these high poverty high schools in order to identify by the middle of the ninth grade the students most likely to drop out.
Set up early warning systems so that adults can step in at the first sign that a student is in trouble.
Employ additional adults to support students who need daily nagging to succeed, especially during the key transitional years in the sixth and ninth grades.

These two programs have lots of similarities and are focused on at-risk inner-city youth. Massive black underachievement is a huge social problem, and ultimately a huge drain on our entire economy as well. More than just good intentions are necessary for effective intervention. An intelligent and focused approach as described here would be a good way to proceed.

How to Tame the Regulatory State

Posted on May 19, 2015 by jackheidel

I have just been reading a fascinating new book by Charles Murray, “By the People: rebuilding liberty without permission,” describing how the U.S. regulatory agencies were created and the many abuses they impose upon us.
As Mr. Murray explains, a Regulatory Agency first promulgates substantive rules of conduct. A complaint that an Agency rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Agency and adjudicated by the Agency. If the Agency ultimately finds a violation, then and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an independent judicial court. But an Agency decision, even before the court, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and law.
“If the enabling legislation is silent or ambiguous, Congress has in effect left a gap in the statute for the Agency to fill. If the Agency in filling that gap has interpreted the statute in a ‘reasonable’ manner, the court will give effect to that judgment, deferring to the Agency.”
Mr. Murray proposes a new standard that “All regulations that are arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion are automatically eligible for civil disobedience.” To this end a private legal-aid foundation should be set up to provide legal assistance to ordinary Americans who are being victimized by the regulatory state. It would be funded by what Mr. Murray refers to as the Madison Fund. A $100 million endowment from a wealthy individual would be sufficient to get it started.
Its purpose would be:

To defend people who are innocent of the regulatory charges against them.
To defend people who are technically guilty of violating regulations that should not exist, by drawing out the litigation as long as possible, making enforcement of the regulations more expensive to the regulatory agency than they’re worth and reimbursing fines that are levied.
To generate as much publicity as possible, both to raise public awareness of the government’s harassment of ordinary people and to bring the pressure of public opinion to bear on the problem.

The goal is to achieve a “No Harm, No Foul” regulatory regime. A good analogy is to force regulators to use the same strategy as used by state troopers on interstate highways. A majority of drivers are engaged in civil disobedience just about all the time. But normal practice is to stop only those people who are driving significantly faster than the flow of traffic or are driving erratically.
As Mr. Murray concludes, “We’re all biased, but only people within government have the power to impose their biases on their fellow citizens with the force of law.”

Why Is U.S. Productivity Growth Declining?

Posted on May 17, 2015 by jackheidel

The economist Alan Blinder has just reported, “The Mystery of Declining Productivity Growth” that U.S. productivity growth has fallen dramatically in the last few years. “The healthy 2.6% a year from 1995-2010 has since been an anemic 0.4%. What’s scary is that we don’t know why.”
The economists Edward Prescott and Lee Ohanian believe the productivity slowdown is caused by a corresponding slowdown in new startups (as illustrated by the above chart). They point out, for example, that:

The creation rate of new businesses in 2011 was 30% lower than the average rate of the 1980s.
New startups are critical for growth since many of today’s heavyweights will decline as new businesses take their place. For example, only half of the Fortune 500 firms in 1995 remained on that list in 2010.
Startups in high technology have also declined since 2000 even though there is no slowdown in the development of new technology.

Consistent with the recommendations of James Bessen in a recent post of mine, “Learning by Doing,” Messrs. Prescott and Ohanian recommend policy changes such as:

Better training, plus immigration reform, to produce more skilled workers.
Streamlining regulations that raise cost, especially for small businesses.
Tax reform to reduce marginal tax rates.
Reforming Dodd-Frank to make it easier for small businesses to obtain loans from main street banks.

In today’s New York Times, the economist Tyler Cowen wonders whether our economy is in the midst of a “Great Reset.” “Perhaps the most crucial issue is whether economies will return to normal conditions of steady growth, or whether we are witnessing a fundamental transformation” to a less productive economy.
Here’s another way to put it: shall we attempt to adopt better pro-growth policies or shall we just give in to the status quo and accept that we can’t do any better? Are we optimists or are we pessimists?

Learning By Doing III. Limiting the Influence of Lobbyists

Posted on May 14, 2015 by jackheidel

The eclectic entrepreneur/economist/law professor, James Bessen, suggests how to boost our stagnant economy in a new book, “Learning by Doing: the real connection between innovation, wages and wealth.” The idea is to make fuller use of new technology by putting more emphasis on practical vocational training, ending government favoritism for established businesses, and by removing regulatory roadblocks to job mobility and entrepreneurship. He also thinks that the greatest hindrance to progress on these fronts is the influence of lobbyists and, more generally, “the growing role of money in politics.”
How do we limit the ability of lobbyists, with their huge financial resources, to slow down the opening up of new technology to the broadest possible group of participants? Some people would say this can only be done by curtailing the use of money in politics. But this is virtually impossible. Spending money to get your message out is really just a form of speech and the First Amendment to the Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”
Rather than trying to restrict the ways in which lobbyists can spend their money, we could alternatively try to immunize our elected representatives from its effect, in one or both of these two different ways:

Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Such an amendment would likely create the discipline needed for Congress to be able to set priorities and decide what is more or less important with regard to the overall economy. Spending programs, tax revenue, and the effects of regulation would all have to be considered together to maximize economic efficiency. Lobbyists would have far less power to push one particular program independently of how it relates to everything else.
Term Limits for national office. Knowing that one’s time in office is limited would help provide the strength to make the difficult tradeoffs necessary for good legislation and make officeholders more immune to special interest influence.

Conclusion: Rather than making a likely futile attempt to reduce the amount of money in the political process, change the process sufficiently so that money doesn’t have as much influence!

Learning By Doing II. The negative influence of lobbyists

Posted on May 12, 2015 by jackheidel

My last post reported on a new book by James Bessen, “Learning by Doing: the real connection between innovation, wages and wealth.” It makes several recommendations for how the U.S. can better meet the challenges posed by the hollowing out of the middle class, as illustrated in the chart just below from the Dallas Federal Reserve.
Mr. Bessen blames one primary culprit for this problem: the growing role of money in politics. For example:

The dramatic growth in occupational licensure from 70 occupations covering 5% of the workforce in the 1950s to over 800 occupations covering over 29% of the workforce in 2008. Such a major change can only be understood as the outcome of massive lobbying.
Defense procurement. For example, in 2012 the defense industry spent $132 million on over 900 lobbyists. It is hardly surprising that defense procurement rules have favored established defense contractors at the expense of start-up technology firms.
The best patent law money can buy. Patent trolls have continued to file more lawsuits, despite the America Invents Act of 2011. A new legislative effort for patent reform in 2013 passed the House by a margin by a margin of 325 to 91 but then was killed by the Senate in May 2014.
Changes in trade secret law. The problem is that more uniform trade law, which sounds desirable, also broadens its scope which then limits employee mobility and the creation of spin-offs.
Strong enforcement of non-compete agreements in Massachusetts protects established firms but hurts startups. This has given Silicon Valley companies a big advantage over the companies on Route 128 outside of Boston.

Mr. Bessen makes a very strong case for the harmful effects of lobbyists and their money in retarding economic growth. But how can we possibly curtail the influence of lobbyists without limiting their freedom of speech? Stay tuned for the next post!

Learning By Doing

Posted on May 10, 2015 by jackheidel

The two biggest problems facing our country today are a stagnant economy and an exploding national debt. Faster economic growth would help pay our bills by bringing in more tax revenue. It would also create more jobs and give a boost to stagnant wages. One of the causes of this stagnation is that our economy has become less entrepreneurial over time as shown by this often cited chart from the Brookings Institution.
A very interesting new book by James Bessen, “Learning by Doing: the real connection between innovation, wages and wealth.” looks at both our economic history and our current economy to understand how society can best meet the challenges posed by new technology. Mr. Bessen identifies the basic problems as follows:

Funds have been shifted away from vocational education and community colleges at a time when large numbers of workers could acquire valuable skills at these institutions.
The rapid growth of occupational licensing restricts training and jobs open to mid-skill workers and, in many cases, limits their use of technology.
Military procurement favors large defense contractors over start-up firms, while heightened secrecy requirements limit the development of open standards and the broad sharing of knowledge.
Job mobility has declined, limiting knowledge sharing and weakening labor markets.
Abusive patent litigation has exploded, making it harder for startups and small firms to develop new technology.

Mr. Bessen concludes:“The practical skills of ordinary people have been a wellspring of widely shared wealth for 200 years, and the economic power of mighty nations rests on the technical knowledge of the humble. Provide the means for ordinary workers to acquire the skills and knowledge to implement new technology today and the economic bounty will not only grow, it will be widely shared.”
What are the roadblocks to implementing Mr. Bessen’s recommendations? I will return to this question later.

Why Inequality Is Harmful and What to Do About It

Posted on May 7, 2015 by jackheidel

I describe this blog as addressing our fiscal and economic problems, meaning deficits and debt on the one hand and slow economic growth on the other. But these topics, while being of critical importance to our national welfare, are also somewhat on the dry side. The subject of economic inequality stirs up lots more interest and response. In the Fall of 2012 The Economist declared that “a new form of radical centrist politics is needed to tackle inequality without hurting economic growth.”
Says The Economist:

There’s too much cronyism in the rich world. Banks which are “too big to fail” have an implicit subsidy. From doctors to lawyers, many high paying professions are full of unnecessarily restrictive practices. Social spending often helps the rich more than the poor. For example housing subsidies for the top 20% (mortgage-interest deductions) are four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest 20%.
If income gaps become too wide, they can lead to less equality of opportunity, especially in education. The gap in test scores between rich and poor American children is 30 – 40% wider than it was 25 years ago.
If those on the top of the heap resist equalizing changes, it could lead to political pressure which serves nobody’s best interests.

Here are The Economist’s proposals for a True Progressive Agenda to attack inequality:

Compete. A Rooseveltian attack on monopolies and vested interests is needed. School reform is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to social mobility as the teacher’s unions have.
Target. Government spending need to be focused on the poor and the young. Governments can’t hope to spend less on the elderly but they can reduce the pace of increase.
Reform. Eliminate tax deductions which primarily benefit the wealthy such as for mortgage-interest; narrow the gap between tax rates on wages and capital income.

“The right is still not convinced that inequality matters. The left’s default position is to raise income tax rates for the wealthy and to increase spending still further – unwise when sluggish economies need to attract entrepreneurs and when governments are overburdened with promises of future spending.”
Surely there is a better way!

It Does Not Add Up

Jack Heidel's blog on fiscal responsibility

Category Archives: Jack Heidel