Should-Read: Paul Krugman: Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies

Should-Read: Paul Krugman: Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies: “Modern conservatives have been lying about taxes pretty much from the beginning of their movement…

…Made-up sob stories about family farms broken up to pay inheritance taxes, magical claims about self-financing tax cuts, and so on go all the way back to the 1970s. But the selling of tax cuts under Trump has taken things to a whole new level…. When I set out to make a list of the bigger lies, I thought there would be six or seven, and was surprised to come up with ten. So I thought it might be useful, both for myself and for others, to put together a crib sheet….

Lie #1: America is the most highly-taxed country in the world…. Lie #2: The estate tax is destroying farmers and truckers…. Lie #3: Taxation of pass-through entities is a burden on small business…. Lie #4: Cutting profits taxes really benefits workers…. Lie #5: Repatriating overseas profits will create jobs…. Lie #6: This is not a tax cut for the rich…. Lie #7: It’s a big tax cut for the middle class…. Lie #8: It won’t increase the deficit…. Lie #9: Cutting taxes will jump-start rapid growth…. Lie #10: Tax cuts will pay for themselves….

So there we are: ten big tax-cut lies. That was pretty exhausting, actually – and as I said, I’ve probably missed a few, and/or Trump will invent some new ones. But I hope this ends up being a useful reference….”

Should-Read: Simon Wren-Lewis: How Neoliberals weaponise the concept of an ideal market

Should-Read: Simon Wren-Lewis: How Neoliberals weaponise the concept of an ideal market: “I would tend to suggest…

…”neoliberalism is a political strategy promoting the interests of big money that utilises the economist’s ideal of a free market to promote and extend market activity and remove all ‘interference’ in the market than conflicts with these interests.” This replaces a definition based on following an idea ([Colin Crouch’s] market neoliberalism), by one of interests promoting an idea so long as it suits those interests. This alternative definition seems to fit two cases…. Large banks benefit hugely from an implicit subsidy provided by the state (being bailed out when things go wrong), but neoliberals do not worry too much about this form of state interference in the market (whereas economists do). Regulations on the other hand they do complain about. It is a very selective focus on market interference….

Executive pay… is always justified by neoliberals as being something determined by the free market, when obviously it is not. Yet if you pretend that there is a market in executives and salaries etc are set by that market and not the remuneration committees of firms, then you are being a good neoliberal by defending these salaries. This example is interesting because it involves defending one part of ‘big money’ (CEOs or some workers in finance) at the expense of another (shareholders). It is why I do not talk about the interests of capital in my definition.

Is this alternative definition simply negating the power of ideas and going back to good old interests? Only in part. Interests utilise an idea because the idea is a powerful persuasive tool. There is an obvious lesson for the left here. Because neoliberals promote the concept of an ideal market only when it suits them, so opposing neoliberalism does not necessarily mean opposing the concept of an ideal market. The left should utiliise the same concept to oppose monopoly power, for example. The idea of a free market is too powerful an idea to cede to the other side.

Should-Read: Martin Wolf: A political shadow looms over the world economy

Should-Read: I really wish that the FT would stop calling it “populism” and start calling it “fascism”. “Populism” is a set of policies—some good on net, some bad—to redistribute income downward. Fascism is something much uglier. Fascism is what we have. Nobody thinks Trump or his Republican enablers or their allies and fellow travelers elsewhere are interested in redistributing income downward:

Martin Wolf: A political shadow looms over the world economy: “Optimism about the global economy is tempered by fears of populism…

…promising simple solutions to complex problems… Brexit… Catalonia… above all, in the US, where the implications of Donald Trump’s election remain almost as obscure as they were on the day of his inauguration. Inevitably, the transformation of US policy is far and away the deepest worry. This might still amount to little more than sound and fury signifying nothing. But it is also far too early to be confident of that…. Vast tax cuts at a time of near full employment… reducing the external deficit through a series of negotiations, starting with Nafta. The aim of fixing an overall current account deficit through bilateral trade negotiations is not only intellectually incoherent, but clashes directly with its fiscal policies. It may be nonsense, but it could lead to the cumulative unravelling of the global trading system…

Should-Read: Ben Bernanke: Monetary Policy in a New Era

Should-Read: If only this Ben Bernanke (2017) (and Paul Krugman (1998)) could have had the ear of some central bank leader over 2006-2014!

Ben Bernanke: Monetary Policy in a New Era: “Outside of making a stronger case for proactive fiscal policies, there are two broad possibilities…

…Monetary policymakers could make greater use of new tools… both forward guidance and quantitative easing are potentially effective supplements to conventional rate cuts, and that concerns about adverse side effects (particularly in the case of quantitative easing) are overstated. These two tools can thus serve to ease the ZLB constraint in the future…. A second broad response to the problem is to modify the overall policy framework…. I propose… a “temporary price-level target” that kicks in only during periods in which rates are constrained by the ZLB…

Weekend reading, “racial health disparities, wealth inequality, and labor market tightness” edition

This is a weekly post we publish on Fridays with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week, and the second is work we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We might not be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

This week, Equitable Growth released three new working papers:

The first is by Darrick Hamilton, an associate professor of economics and urban policy at the New School for Social Research, who analyzes the role of racism and stigma in persistent racial health disparities. Hamilton also wrote a column on his research. He explains that racial health disparities persist for black Americans regardless of socioeconomic status and, paradoxically, often worsen with more education.

Jess Benhabib and Alberto Bisin, both professors of economics at New York University, wrote the other two papers, one with NYU Ph.D. Candidate Mi Luo. Both look at wealth distribution in the United States and why it’s so unequal. In a separate column, Nick Bunker digs into the papers’ main findings.

Bunker also has a new issue brief, which asks “Just how tight is the U.S. labor market?” As wage growth continues to be tepid, Bunker’s analysis shows that the labor market is not as tight as the low unemployment rate would have you believe.

Every month the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics releases data on hiring, firing, and other labor market flows from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, better known as JOLTs. We highlight a few key findings through graphs using data from the report.

In an op-ed for the Washington Business Journal, Heather Boushey argues that repealing and replacing D.C.’s paid family leave act won’t just harm workers, but businesses, and D.C.’s government and economy as well.

Links from around the web

In an interview published by ProMarket, Anat Admati, the George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, argues that economists’ and governments’ failure to address the growing concentration of corporate power and rising inequality has had severe consequences for economic and political stability. [promarket]

Perry Stein writes about a new Georgetown University study that finds that Washington, D.C.’s growing economy is leaving the city’s longtime black residents behind, mirroring a trend in cities across the nation. The inequities, Perry writes, can be traced back to discriminatory practices that prevented black residents from participating in the economy. [washington post]

Tanvi Misra interviews MacArthur grant recipient and New York Times journalist, Nikole Hannah-Jones, about how the legacy of historic discriminatory practices is not the only factor in persistent racial segregation. Jones maintains that “there are policymakers who are making decisions right now that are maintaining segregation.”  [citylab]

In today’s economy, only the most educated Americans can afford to pick up and move for better opportunities, a serious problem in a dynamic economy. Alana Semuels writes about how, even as jobs decline in some regions of the United States, skyrocketing housing costs in the best-paying cities prevent lower-income workers from relocating. [the atlantic]

Ana Swanson and Jim Tankersley examine a new International Monetary Fund report warning governments that they risk undermining global economic growth by cutting taxes on the wealthy. [new york times]

Friday Figure

From “Post-racial rhetoric, racial health disparities, and health disparity consequences of stigma, stress, and racism,” by Darrick Hamilton.

Must-Read: Olivier Blanchard and Lawrence Summers: Rethinking macro stabilization: Back to the future

Must-Read: I read this as saying, in one respect: “the neoclassical synthesis, and the resulting decision by MIT Keynesians to focus on the errors of Cambridge Keynesians and to build bridges not to them but to Chicago monetarists was, in retrospect, a big mistake”. I remember Larry saying in, I think 1981, “there are a lots of careers to be made and knowledge to be gained by mathing up Keynes’s General Theory properly”. Yet, the honorable examples of Roger Farmer and a number of others notwithstanding, too much macro has instead been off chasing squirrels for two generations:

Olivier Blanchard and Lawrence Summers: Rethinking macro stabilization: Back to the future: “Lessons from past crises…

…The Great Depression: The economy can implode…. Need for aggressive policies…. Apparent success, from 1940 to the late 1960s. The stagflation of the 1970s: The Keynesian approach…. Think of fluctuations as “business cycles”…. With predictable policy rules, economy will be stable…. Apparent success, from the mid 1980s to the mid 2000s

The three main lessons we draw from this crisis…. Centrality of the financial system… nature of fluctuations… low rates (“secular stagnation”)… interact[ing] with the first two. One should add, but we leave it aside: The increasing salience of inequality (interacting with low growth)….

Think of events of last ten years: Runs… liquidity trap for nearly 10 years… remaining unemployment gaps… utput far below the pre-crisis trend in AEs. Business as usual? No: Economies do not self stabilize… implo[sion] hysteresis… need strong pro-active and reactive policies…. In many ways, “Back to the future” and the Keynesian revolution

Slight (but productive) tensions between the two authors…. Evolution or Revolution?

  • The case for Revolution
    • Financial crises very likely again. Poorly understood
    • Economies unstable. Non linearities essential
    • Secular stagnation here to stay.
    • Not amenable to VAR, DSGEs. Need new approaches
  • The case for Evolution
    • Models can be extended. Much wisdom to be kept
    • Non linearities mostly in “dark corners’’
    • Financial crises will remain rare events
    • Can be handled with the right combination of the 3 policies.

But common agreement on the need for change.

Should-Read: Tim Duy: Fed Is Ignoring Actual Inflation Data

Should-Read: Tim Duy: Fed Is Ignoring Actual Inflation Data: “Policy makers may be relying on the wrong model as they push for a December rate hike…

…Market participants should be aware of some fairly significant monetary policy dangers over the next year. One risk is that the Fed mistakenly adheres to a broken Phillips curve framework… possibly triggering the recession gradualism is meant to avoid. What concerns me most, however, is… stepping up the pace of rate increases should inflation accelerate. After all, they already tightened in advance of that quickening. I am worried that they will lose sight of the lags in monetary policy and, upon seeing inflation accelerate, conclude that their Phillips curve approach was correct all along and that they are falling behind the curve. This would almost certainly be a recipe for recession…

Should-Read: Nick Bunker: Just how tight is the U.S. labor market?

Should-Read: Nick Bunker: Just how tight is the U.S. labor market?: “From the end of the 1991 recession until the second quarter of 2017, the prime employment rate explains about 80 percent of the variation in nominal wage growth…

Just how tight is the U S labor market Equitable Growth Just how tight is the U S labor market Equitable Growth

…The unemployment rate… explains 50 percent of the variation in nominal wage growth…. Models that include both the unemployment rate and the job switching rate explain less of the variation in wage or compensation growth than the prime employment rate by itself…. When unemployment is included with the prime employment rate, an increase in the unemployment rate is associated with an increase in wage and compensation growth—the opposite of what we might expect….

The… U.S. labor market is not as tight as the unemployment rate would have us believe…. The strong relationship between the prime employment rate and several measures of wage and compensation growth suggest a number of nonemployed workers who can and may find a job are not being counted in the unemployment rate…. Many workers who seem locked out of the labor force may, in fact, be able to get a job if the labor market continues to tighten…. Overestimating the strength of the labor market and leaving these workers unemployed would be a tragedy not only for those workers, but for the U.S. economy as a whole.

Must- and Should-Reads: October 12, 2017


Interesting Reads:

Should-Read: Vitor Gaspar and Mercedes Garcia-Escribano: Inequality: Fiscal Policy Can Make the Difference

Should-Read: Vitor Gaspar and Mercedes Garcia-Escribano: Inequality: Fiscal Policy Can Make the Difference: “Income inequality among people around the world has been declining in recent decades…

…[with] countries like China and India’s incomes catching-up to advanced economies. But… inequality within countries has increased, particularly in advanced economies…. Policymakers [now] have a window of opportunity to respond with reforms that tackle inequality, and our new Fiscal Monitor shows how the right mix of fiscal policies can make the difference. In advanced economies, fiscal policy offsets about a third of income inequality before taxes and transfers—commonly known as market income inequality—with 75 percent coming from transfers. Spending on education and health also affects market income inequality over time by promoting social mobility, including across generations. In developing economies, fiscal redistribution is much weaker, given lower and less progressive taxes and spending…