Mancur Olson | The Economist

Mancur Olson’s 1998 obituary from The Economist sums up his beliefs as to why Germany and Japan made such startling recoveries after WWII while Britain, one of the victors, floundered.

The conclusion was striking. Narrow, self-serving groups had an inherent, though not insuperable, advantage over broad ones that worry about the well-being of society as a whole. How might that insight explain the fate of nations? In 1982, in “The Rise and Decline of Nations”, [Mancur Olson] offered an answer.

In any human society, he said, parochial cartels and lobbies tend to accumulate over time, until they begin to sap a country’s economic vitality. A war or some other catastrophe sweeps away the choking undergrowth of pressure groups. This had happened in Germany and Japan, but not in Britain, which, although physically damaged in the war, had retained many of its old institutions. Surely there was some less cataclysmic route to renewal? Yes, said Mr Olson, a nation’s people could beat back the armies of parochialism, but only if the danger were recognised and reforms embraced.

Read more at Mancur Olson | The Economist.

Lakshman Achuthan's US recession call

Sam Ro of Business Insider quotes ECRI:

So, with about a month to go before year-end, what do the hard data tell us about where we are in the business cycle? Reviewing the indicators used to officially decide U.S. recession dates, it looks like the recession began around July 2012. This is because, in retrospect, three of those four coincident indicators – the broad measures of production, income, employment and sales – saw their high points in July….. with only employment still rising.

See chart at Lakshman Achuthan's Tell-Tale Chart | Business Insider.

Economy Adds 146,000 Jobs | WSJ.com

Neil Shah at WSJ writes:

America’s employers added jobs at a slow pace in November, easing fears that uncertainty about U.S. budget policies would stifle hiring, but fueling concerns about the robustness of the economic recovery.

The Labor Department’s latest snapshot of the job market said employers added 146,000 jobs last month. That is an improvement from the previous two months, but below the average job growth per month of about 150,000 over the past two years.

via Economy Adds 146,000 Jobs | WSJ.com.

Reid: Eurozone's 2013 Nightmare Scenario | Business Insider

In his 2013 outlook, titled In Authorities We (have to) Trust, Deutsche Bank credit strategist Jim Reid warns that Europe is headed for tough times in 2013.

Matthew Boesler at BusinessInsider writes:

Reid highlights three major issues.

To start, European stocks – and stocks in markets around the world, for that matter – are considerably overvalued based on historical correlations to PMI data….

The second problem is austerity. Most accept that austerity measures weigh on economic growth in the short term, yet euro-area governments are moving forward with plans attempting to bring fiscal budgets back into balance anyway.

…. the third problem: namely, that governments have consistently set economic forecasts too high and then failed to meet their own targets.

Read more here Reid: Eurozone’s 2013 Nightmare Scenario | Business Insider.

Jack Kemp Showed GOP How to Appeal to Minorities

Bruce Bartlett writes that late senator Jack Kemp is a role model for how Republicans should engage with minorities:

Although Kemp pushed for a cut in tax rates for the wealthy, he was adamant that all workers must share in the benefits of lower taxes. He also focused heavily on the idea that saving, investment, technological advancement and capital formation were the essential goals of economic and tax policy, because they raised productivity, which would raise the wages of workers. Today, Republicans just blithely assume that tax cuts for the wealthy will automatically help the economy without ever explaining how or why.

The key to a thriving capitalist system is a successful partnership between capitalists and labor. Capitalists benefited hugely over the last half-century from jobs the private sector created — and from rising wage levels — through growing consumption. Without consumption they would fail. Workers on the other side of the bargain have also benefited from job creation and rising wage levels. Without them they would suffer unemployment and genuine hardship. Neither side can afford to focus on their own needs without recognizing the importance of the other’s.

Mancur Olson argued that specialized unions with narrow membership will attempt to optimize benefits to their members, be it airline pilots or sanitation workers, even if this achieves a sub-optimal outcome for the economy as a whole. In other words, they will advance their own interests at the expense of others. But he also argued that broad-based unions will not, recognizing that they cannot advance their own members’ interests if the economy as a whole suffers.

I believe the same applies to capitalists. Monopolies or cartels who attempt to maximize their own profits will damage the economy, while broader-based groups will recognize that they can only maximize profits by advancing the economy as a whole — creating new jobs and lifting wage levels.

You also cannot focus solely on lifting wage levels — as Herbert Hoover attempted in the early 1930s — in the hope that this will support the broader economy. Higher wages will slow job creation and retard the recovery. The focus has to be on maximizing the total wage bill — and consumption. At times, during a recession, this requires lower wages and more jobs. But as the economy approaches full employment, wages will rise while job creation slows.

Exporting jobs offshore may serve the narrow interests of some manufacturers but is ultimately not in their long-term interest. They may gain from cheaper labor costs but they are also exporting consumption, which will directly or indirectly hurt sales.

That Kemp was an extraordinary man is also borne out by his views on immigrants, emphasizing integration rather than exclusion:

I also know that Kemp had a far different attitude toward immigrants than virtually all Republicans today. He welcomed them, seeing immigration as one of the economy’s lifebloods. He would be extremely critical of efforts to demagogue Latino immigrants who come here, legally or illegally, just looking to earn an honest living and enjoy the American way of life.

Read more here: Jack Kemp Showed GOP How to Appeal to Minorities | The Fiscal Times.

Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked

EDWARD MORRISSEY writes about Clinton-era nostalgia:

In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue……. Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents.The real debate over deficits isn’t over whether to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. It’s how to get back to Clinton-era spending levels, and then create a tax system that will adequately fund it. The 18.2 percent level of federal spending is one piece of Clinton-era nostalgia worth recalling – as well as the bipartisanship that eventually produced it.

Nostalgists should also remember that the housing bubble started in this era — as did the internet boom — followed by the dot-com bust just as Clinton left office. This article is definitely worth reading.

via Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked.

How cancelling central banks’ holdings of government debt could be a useful thing | FT Alphaville

FT’s Kate Mackenzie writes: Morgan Stanley cross-asset strategist Gerard Minack says the remarkable thing about developed economy deleveraging is how little of it has happened:

The credit super-cycle ended four years ago, but leverage has hardly fallen in major economies: debt-to-GDP ratios remain historically high.

Debt To GDP Ratio

Minack says the problem is some of that deleveraging (particularly for households) is being tackled by saving more, but that won’t solve the problem, or at least not very quickly. This is because of what the borrowings were used to finance: mostly pre-existing assets (that were forecast to rise in value) rather than expenditure.

There is a simple reason why deleveraging is taking so long: governments are borrowing money (deficit-spending) to offset private sector deleveraging and avert a deflationary spiral. So overall (non-financial) debt to GDP ratios, which include government debt, are almost unchanged.

That is not necessarily a bad thing — unless you would prefer a 1930s-style 50% drop in GDP after a deflationary spiral. What can be destructive is funding government deficits from offshore because you eventually have to pay the money back. Far better to borrow from yourself — in other words your “independent” central bank. That way you never have to pay it back.

As for canceling central bank holdings of government debt. Why bother? Interest payments made on the debt go right back to the Treasury as central bank profit distributions. And why set a precedent? I doubt many would believe government promises that this was a once-off and would never be repeated…….until next time.

via How cancelling central banks’ holdings of government debt could be a useful thing | FT Alphaville.

Fed set to unveil extra asset purchases – FT.com

Robin Harding at FT writes:

The other issue on the agenda is replacing the FOMC’s current forecast that rates will stay low until mid-2015 with a set of preconditions for the economy to reach before it considers raising rates. “I now think a threshold of 6.5 per cent for the unemployment rate and an inflation safeguard of 2.5 per cent . . . would be appropriate,” said Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed…..

The problem is that both of these thresholds are moving targets:

  • Unemployment is based on surveys and only includes those who have actively sought a job in recent weeks. It fluctuates with the participation rate.
  • Inflation is also subjective, dependent on the basket of goods measured and estimates of housing inflation that are subject to manipulation.

Targeting nominal GDP growth would be far more accurate.

via Fed set to unveil extra asset purchases – FT.com.

Noam Chomsky: “Europe’s policies make sense only on one assumption: that the goal is to try and undermine and unravel the welfare state.” | EUROPP

Noam Chomsky in an interview with EUROPP editors Stuart A Brown and Chris Gilson:

Europe’s policies [austerity during a recession] make sense only on one assumption: that the goal is to try and undermine and unravel the welfare state. And that’s almost been said. Mario Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank, had an interview with the Wall Street Journal where he said that the social contract in Europe is dead. He wasn’t advocating it, he was describing it, but that’s essentially what the policies lead to…….

Chomsky has the cart before the horse. Collapse of welfare states in Europe led to austerity — not the other way round. Joe Hockey had a slightly different take on events in Europe in his April address to the Institute of Economic Affairs:

The Age of Entitlement is over. We should not take this as cause for despair. It is our market based economies which have forced this change on unwilling participants. What we have seen is that the market is mandating policy changes that common sense and years of lectures from small government advocates have failed to achieve.

Reduction of trade barriers and shrinking of the technological advantage enjoyed by developed nations will lead to the inevitable demise of the social contract. Free competition demands efficiency. Countries cannot remain competitive while carrying burdens imposed by a welfare state.

via Five minutes with Noam Chomsky – “Europe’s policies make sense only on one assumption: that the goal is to try and undermine and unravel the welfare state.” | EUROPP.