Category: Political economy

Creating a Jobs Boom

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Creating a “jobs boom” is within the power of the government if the legislators and president are ready to create confidence in the government and economy, incentivize job creation and business investments, make a long-term commitment to transportation/energy and stimulate the government and not-for-profit sector.

Confidence in the Future.

1 Start the process to set a constitution maximum marginal tax rate at 50% of income.

2. Start the process to set a constitutional maximum spending limit for all government budgets at 30% of GDP.

3. Drastically simplify the federal tax for incomes below $200,000, maintaining the current level of progresseness and number of tiers.

4. Eliminate the corporate income tax, replacing lost revenues with personal income tax rate increases at higher incomes.

5. Complete a health care cost reduction bill, based upon cross-state insurance competition and limits on lawsuits.

Direct Job Incentives.

6. Move the full benefits social security retirement and medicare age up 2 years for 2010-2011.

7. Allow direct tax expensing of all capital investments for 2010-2012.

8. Provide firms with 50% tax credits for hiring college graduates in minimum wage, full-time internships.

9. Provide a $10,000 tax credit to firms for hiring engineers and IT professionals in project positions.

10. Sign the country to country free trade agreements that are ready.

Investment Incentives

11. Increase the life of patents and trademarks by 5 years. 

12. Allow direct tax expensing of all capital investments for 2010-2012.  

13. Cancel 25% of federal regulations within 90 days and 50% within 6 months.

14. Improve the value of tax loss carryforward benefits from business losses.

15. Fund the property acquisition in 10 cities to stimulate blighted area development.

Long-term Transportation/Energy Direction

16. Make a 3 year commitment to continue the stimulus level of funding.

17. Loosen the energy regulations for offshore drilling and nuclear power.

18. Select one national highway project, such as I-69, and commit to 7 year completion.

19. Make a 10 year finding commitment to the high-speed rail network.

20. Create a carbon tax scheme for the next 2 decades with a 10% per year transition to full effectiveness.

Government and Not-for-Profit Effectiveness

21. Loan states the money to start independent board governed rainy day funds.

22. Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac quickly.

23. Privatize large state and federal agencies: post office, licenses, air traffic control, and community colleges.

24. Allow first $10,000 of charitable donations as 50% tax credits.

25. Tighten inheritance tax limits, but allow doubled charitable deductions.

Any ten of these easily understood policy changes would jump start the economy, benefiting everyone.

Economic(s) Progress?

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Adam Smith started a conversation in 1776 about the economic and moral benefits of the “invisible hand” in the marketplace – making society better off, in spite of there being no coordinated plan.  Karl Marx argued that the unstoppable workings of history would inevitably lead to a socialist utopia.  In 1976, the sociologist Daniel Bell wrote of the “Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism”, whereby the underlying Protestant Work Ethic is corroded because of the hedonistic consumerism in a capitalist society.  Marx was wrong.  Bell was wrong about the end of capitalism, even if his critique of an aimless society still stings.  Where do we stand today on Smith’s breakthrough claims regarding the moral and economic superiority of the “free market”?

Support for the most simplified view of markets being truly perfect reached its peak following the Reagan/Thatcher years when the totalitarian communist alternative collapsed and the Atlantic version of a mixed economy demonstrated significant ongoing advantages compared with the Nordic version with greater state involvement.  Events of the last two decades – rise of China/emerging markets and fall of US/UK from the Great Recession – have undercut the plausibility of an extreme market solution being the best,  only or final answer.

It is obvious in hindsight that the business cycle has not been tamed, that financial markets are inherently unstable and subject to “animal spirits”, that markets are not perfect and that greed will continue to drive many market participants.  In spite of the positive societal benefits of financial innovations such as options, mutual funds, checkable deposits, portfolios and securitized assets, the broad financial sector seems to be an ongoing source of the greatest failures in capitalism.  The formal definition of “perfect market theory” has not reduced volatility, but it has led to a finance sector where every possible trick is used to generate “wealth”: Ponzi schemes, the carrying trade in foreign investing, borrowing short and lending long, off-balance sheet vehicles, hedge funds and extreme leverage to name a few.

A visible part of the general business sector appears to be equally enamored of finding every possible way to create financial wealth beyond “the old fashioned way, we earn it”.  Mergers and acquisitions continue because they can reduce competition, leverage overvalued stock prices and employ low-cost borrowing, even though on average they do not provide a net return to stockholders.  Corporations manage reported earnings, producing smooth growth for quarters until the next recession provides an opportunity to report losses due to extraordinary items and business conditions.  Executive pay increases as a share of revenues, as stockholders find themselves unable to solve “the agency problem”.  Corporations promote legal and public relations executives to the highest levels because the opportunities to create incremental wealth through influencing public policy are greater than investing in new products or markets.

On the other hand, it remains clear that capitalism remains a tremendous value creating mechanism for society, with productivity growth, innovation and personal incomes rising at strong rates without any long-term end in sight.  The system’s incentives do focus resources on innovation and dynamic value creation.  In spite of John Kenneth Galbraith’s old claims in “The Affluent Society”, there appears to be no limit to the demand for personal consumption at any income levels in society.  The recent work “Richistan” notes that individuals with $5M of annual income feel they would be secure if they only earned 50% more!

In a fundamental way, we’ve come back to the basic framework and issues of economics raised in the post-war period.  What is the right role for government in a mixed economy? 

We have learned some things in the last 50 years and the consensus view is more to the right than it was in 1950 or 1970.  The dynamic long-run wealth creating role of capitalism is better appreciated, including its role as a poverty and inequality reducing strategy.  Most agree that monetary policy matters, expectations about government behavior matter and “fine tuning” is only a theory.  Market competitors are the best anti-monopoly force, so regulation should be light and focus on anti-competitive actions rather than narrowly defined market shares.  Ongoing growth of real incomes in the bottom third of society can offset rising dollar inequality.  John Rawls’ philosophical justification for some income redistribution resonates for many moderates and liberals, but Robert Nozik’s emphasis on “fair rules” alone provides conservatives with a deeply felt alternative view.  Government actors are as subject to self-interest as consumers and capitalists, especially with regard to being “captured” by those they aim to regulate.  Countervailing forces such as labor unions are blunt instruments, which may not even benefit the groups they aim to support.

Many economists would like to see the public policy debates return to the post-war topics, with the two political parties sliding from left to right within the informed framework of current economic knowledge.  Capitalism provides great value as Adam Smith demonstrated.  There are inherent risks due to relying on self-interest (as Smith also noted).  There is a role for government in counterbalancing the business cycle, maintaining fair markets, managing the self-interest of government actors and ensuring public support for capitalism in spite of the unequal distribution of benefits.  The political parties exist to find a “happy medium” on these issues.

The current political climate does not readily support this possibility.  The Republican Party has become increasingly consistent, philosophical, libertarian and monetarist in its views.  Its leaders increasingly define a single economic viewpoint: minimal government, no taxes, minimal economic regulations, rules based monetarism, minimal anti-competitive policy or enforcement, zero income redistribution, etc.  While each of these views has philosophical and substantive research support, the combination of doctrinaire views leaves no room for a sliding scale in public policy, for the only preferred solution is “zero”. 

The Democratic Party has not lost its preference for “redistributing the pie” versus “growing the pie”.  It has not helped its union supporters to evolve into a German or Japanese style alternative way.  It has championed continued protection of its public sector employee supporters from accountability or competition.  It has reached the goal of universal social welfare coverage for health care.  In spite of some tactical moves to the center on economic issues (welfare reform, the means of health care reform, international trade), the Democratic Party continues to emphasize those policy areas that increase the role of the state versus the individual, rather than identifying ways to better leverage the value creating potential of markets.

It seems that it will take more than President Obama’s slogans of “hope and change” to get our political parties and politicians to focus on the potential for increased economic growth and pragmatically justified economic roles for the government.  Perhaps, we need another “political economist” to develop a breakthrough theory of the political sector as insightful and valuable as Smith’s view of the market.

2010 Elections

tomkapostasy1 Comment

The 2010 election campaign is about to begin in earnest.  The events of the last three months have certainly swung the Republicans’ way.  Even the “health reform” victory is likely to have a mostly negative impact on short-run Democratic prospects.  Opposing parties always make progress in midterm elections.  The real question is “how much?”  Eight months from the elections, I give a strong edge to the Republicans, but believe that the “Tea Party” movement may backfire on the right.

Politicians are experts at getting elected and re-elected.  They know that winners occupy enough of the middle to attract swing voters and enough of their edge to motivate the party faithful.  In the 1968 election, George Wallace highlighted the role that socially conservative and economically moderate voters could play.  Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew capitalized on the interests of the silent and moral majority, realigning politics for two generations.  Ronald Reagan clarified the pitch and a more coherent philosophy, solidifying the right-wing strategy.  Subsequent moderate Republicans like the Bushes proclaimed the new message, adopted the tax cut strategy, courted the religious right and increased expectations of their new supporters. 

During this time the Republican Party has successfully shifted the definition of left and right on the critical economic scale, forcing Clinton and Obama to adopt economically conservative means, programs and terminology, while continuing to pursue their leftward goals.  The Republicans have also undercut the Democrats’ classic appeal to the economic interests of the working and middle classes by touting growth, entrepreneurship and economic freedom as higher ideals.  They have increased the weight of social issues and courted a populist libertarian strain in America through fringe candidates such as Ron Paul and Sara Palin.  The Republicans have mastered the tactical dimensions of politics, beating the Dem’s at fundraising, participation, communications and media influence.  Although taunted as “the party of ‘no’”, the Republicans have effectively avoided major responsibility for the weak economy, ongoing terrorist threats, the banking meltdown, immigration gridlock, increasing healthcare costs, wider income distribution and the coming retirement cliff.  Now that Obama has a year under his belt, they are effectively painting him with responsibility for these and other situations.

The Democrats have responded to this shift in the playing field by sending three southerners to the White House (Johnson, Carter and Clinton) positioned as moderates.  The Democrats have maintained their hold on a growing minority and shrinking union base.  They have improved their posturing skills and election tactics, especially in social media.  They have adopted some centrist programs and begun to fight for key terms such as “accountability” and “economic progress”.  The Democrats have taken care of their base through laws and funding.  President Obama has provided a message of bipartisanship, hope and change which deflects attention from controversial specific programs.  He and his colleagues have not hesitated to blame George Bush and the Republicans for a variety of “messes” and dodged their responsibility. 

It is no surprise that a weak economy (it’s the economy stupid) would catch up with Obama, especially given his pursuit of so many distracting goals.  However, the impact of “Tea Party” is something of a surprise.  Sara Palin was clearly chosen as a VP candidate by John McCain to appeal to part of the party faithful.  Her candidacy, the stirrings of Ron Paul, the unfulfilled promises to social conservatives by the Bushes and the demonization of national Democratic leaders and programs for two decades have crystallized into a true populist backlash against the evils of “big government” and its mostly Democratic supporters.

Will the “Tea Party” help or harm the Republicans?  In the short-run, it has clearly scared moderate Democrats, especially those in conservative districts.  On the other hand, it has also scared moderate Republicans, including John McCain.  In some cases, the more conservative primary winners will be defeated due to their extreme positions.

I think that there is an even greater risk that the Republican Party has unintentionally moved so far right in its rhetoric, positions, legislation and new affiliation with the “Tea Party” that it will lose touch with classic moderates and swing voters.  In 1968, Hubert Humphrey wanted nothing more than growth of New Deal and Great Society programs.  He was not seeking a social revolution or a counterculture.  However, the activists painted a picture of revolution that frightened most of the country to embrace the solid posture of twice-defeated Richard Nixon as the safest choice in an emotional time.

If the “Tea Party” continues to gain publicity and become affiliated with the Republican Party, the same kind of social distancing may take place in 2010 or 2012.  By belief or by framing, the ”Tea Party” appears to hold extremist views on the economy (radical self-sufficiency), the role of government (none, including popular entitlement programs), banking (gold standard), religion (one fundamentalist, end of times, withdrawal from society) and security (gun rights and military adventurism).  The “true believer” statements are passionate, direct and uncompromising.  They may provide the Democrats with an “extremist” straw man to replace the current “banker” straw man.

We certainly live in interesting times.

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

“A rising tide lifts all boats”.  When economic progress is steady, or at least not interrupted for too long, this saying seems to hold true.   When everyone benefits from progress, people invest their effort into getting ahead.  Today we face the greatest economic disruption in 75 years.  Without a clear path forward, people of all political views are turning their thoughts enviously towards the boats others.  International trade, labor, spending, health care and tax policies are all being reviewed through the lens of protecting current advantages or redistributing funds.

The classic focus of redistribution is on the “rich” and the “poor”.  Bankers and corporate executives have lost the “entrepreneurial” and “value added” shields of the last 30 years.  Citizens are now concerned about the distribution of income and are willing to consider tax and regulatory changes that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

The share of income captured by the top 1% of earners receives the most attention.  From 1917-1941, through boom, bust and preparation for war, the top 1% earned 15% of all income.  This changed dramatically during WWII and afterwards, leading to a 35 year period from 1953-1987, where income at the top was cut in half, with 8% of the total going to the top 1%.  Top 1% income grew rapidly in the late 1980’s, reaching 13% and then 15% by 1999 and 17% by 2007. 

The spread of income within the center of the population has also broadened in the last 40 years.  In real 2007 dollars, average household income has increased 30% since 1967, from $40,000 to $52,000 per year.  Families at the 20th percentile have also seen a 30% increase, rising from $17,000 to $22,000 per year.  The dollar and percentage growth at the higher percentiles has been much greater.  Households at the 80th percentile have gained 55%, with incomes rising from $67,000 to $104,000.  Those at the 90th percentile have gained 66%, boosting incomes from $85,000 to $141,000.

There is no “natural” or “optimal” distribution of income.  The US has historically had a greater concentration of wealth or income than other economically advanced nations.  As shown by the top 1%, the concentration can change dramatically through time.  However, most economists agree that there is a level of marginal taxation on income, wealth, dividends and capital gains that significantly reduces incentives for hours worked, innovation, risk taking and entrepreneurship.  

Small changes to the taxation and incentive structure of the US economy are not likely to cause too much damage.  Significant tax increases could do significant short-term and long-term damage to the economy and to those at the lower end of the economic pyramid who depend upon the rising tide to lift their boats in the long run.

Good Riddance to Utopian Views of 2000

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Much of the anxiety being expressed in the political arena today stems from the discovery that the turn of the millennium consensus views of steady assured progress were exaggerated, or just plain wrong.  The events of the last decade have shown that simple, deterministic conclusions are usually wrong.  This is not the first time that western society has had its “progressive” bubble burst.  Even the recent triple play natural disasters (hurricane, tsunami and earthquake) have a parallel in the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, which lead Voltaire to attack the belief that man was living in “the best of all possible worlds”.

In 2000, we thought that representative government would prevail as an increasing number of countries became functional democracies and established democratic traditions.  Cuba was the special exception.  Even China was seen as a potential convert.  Progress was being made in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.   We now see that China’s leaders intend to maintain power, that progress in Russia and Eastern Europe is fragile and that a new Bolivarian revolution justifies dictatorships.

In 2000, the division of state and religious spheres was clear and settled in Europe, allowing a variety of religions to work within a set of rules.  The Pope spoke out for radical changes to society, but had limited impact.  Some progress in conflict areas lead to hope for progress, as nations from Turkey to Indonesia to Ireland found solutions.  The “consensus” was an illusion.  Islam, Christianity and other religions are not content to work within the context a secular humanist state.  We now see that “true believers” do not fit within the tidy scheme.

In 2000, a decade after the fall of the “iron curtain”, the U.S. stood tall as the only superpower, even after cashing in the peace dividend.  The US, Europe and the UN began to make significant progress in handling the remaining “trouble spots”, in areas that seemed unfamiliar and insignificant.  We now see that Brazil, Russia, India and China would like to join the US, Europe and Japan in a multi-polar world.  The shifting alliances of earlier centuries are the model of our future.

In 2000, after dodging the ironic Y2K threat, the world saw an unlimited future of technological progress.  The older physics, chemistry and energy based economy continued to grow at a healthy pace.  Agricultural and biological innovations promised to feed the world and heal the sick.  Information technology continued to evolve through the internet, telecommunications and knowledge management.  Even the environment was improving, as 30 years of focus on clean air, clean water and eliminating toxic waste had a cumulative positive impact.  We’re still making progress, but concerns about energy and water shortages, Frankenfoods, genetic manipulation and climate change become greater with time, as no simple “solutions” have appeared.

In 2000, international economic progress was in full-stride.  Individual, regional and global trade agreements increased trade and cross-country investment.  International financial crises were managed and outlier countries were guided through an agreed upon recovery plan.  European economic integration continued to deliver benefits with each new step.  Today, we struggle to find common ground for major trade deals.  A variety of crisis recovery models seem valid.  Further European economic integration is possible, but the benefits are not so certain.  International sensitivity to trade, labor, environmental, property rights and investment differences is growing.

In 2000, a mixed capitalist economic model dominated.  There were two flavors, traditional European and Atlantic, but these were differences in style and degree, not in fundamental substance.  Success stories in all areas of the world indicated that this model could and would be replicated.  Today, there are several varieties of state capitalism (Russia, China, France, Japan, and Venezuela) that offer alternatives.

Finally, in 2000, there was a widespread belief that we had moved into a new economic model where the rough edges of capitalism had been tamed.  The business cycle could be managed through independent monetary policy (and a touch of fiscal policy).  Productivity, inflation and unemployment goals could all be attained.  Financial guidelines like price-earnings ratios had been superseded by a “new economy”.  And, risk and volatility had been tamed through portfolio theory, hedging and new financial instruments.

The world is not in worse condition today than it was a decade ago.  Only by moving past the unrealistically utopian views of the turn of the century can we make progress in addressing the challenges we face.

Indiana Redistricting Proposal Adds Value

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

“For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail.”  —  Benjamin Franklin

 Now, more than ever, society must rely on real economic growth to make the pie larger and allow us to choose how to divide the pie.  In the hot policy areas – global warming, health care, unemployment, alternate energy, retirement security, national security, adequate food – all solutions depend upon our ability to grow the economy.

 The private sector, especially in the last 30 years, has demonstrated its nearly unlimited ability to create value.  The contrast between productivity growth in the competitive sectors (ag, manufacturing, distribution, communications, mining, transportation, media, banking, IT, services) and the others (government, social services, utilities, education, health care) is instructive.  About 60% of the economy delivers 3-5% annual productivity improvements, while the other 40% is stuck at 0-1%.

 The slow growth sectors are all in areas where market failure is the rule – sometimes because services are natural public goods and sometimes due to natural monopolies, externalities, or unequal information.  In each case, there is a key role to be played by the government in shaping these industries to pursue continuous improvement as happens naturally in other sectors.

 Unfortunately, our political system does not produce “philosopher kings” who cooperate to find optimal solutions.  In a two-party democratic system, the best that can be hoped for is that the two parties will define contrasting, yet centrist policies and employ politicians who can seek re-election by solving some problems rather than merely demonizing the other side.

 The gerrymandering of Indiana congressional, senate and representative districts every 10 years encourages a polarized political environment.  The party in power draws districts to maximize their representation by creating as many 55-60% safe districts as possible, while consolidating their opponents into as few 80-90% majority districts as possible.

 This process results in extreme left and extreme right candidates winning nearly all races.  Centrist candidates have no chance in stacked districts.  Centrist voters have no influence in stacked districts.  The political parties attract extremist candidates.  They attract extremist supporters.  Only in a small minority of districts do voters have a choice between two qualified centrist candidates who mainly differ by a modest degree on the political spectrum. 

 The Indiana Senate’s Republican Caucus, Secretary of State Todd Rokita and Carmel representative Mike Delph have floated various proposals to turn redistricting over to some form of non-partisan commission, required to take advantage of the computer software which can define boundaries to maximize the compactness of each district, without considering socio-economic, religious, racial or political factors. 

 A visual example of the current skewed districts versus neutral districts is shown at http://bolson.org/dist/IN/.

 Members of both political parties should be able to see that the skillful use of gerrymandering today is a recipe for failure.  Even California voters are now seeing that structures that lead to polarization can bankrupt a state.  Indiana voters who care about the future should pursue this “good government” initiative.

Civic Investment in Monuments

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

I’ve noted a pattern in our local government investments.

CIB Conseco Fieldhouse, CIB Lucas Oil Stadium, Carmel Clay Parks Monon Center, Indianapolis Airport Authority Midfield Terminal, Carmel Regional Performing Arts Center and the CIB Convention Center Expansion seem to have the same issues.

They were built with public funds to meet public and private needs.  The bondholders are well secured by public revenue sources and commitments.  The operating revenues are less than what is required.  The users do not want to pay more.  Current political forces are criticizing historical decisions and current operations.  The public thinks that the politicians are incompetent and/or captured by special interests.  The public wants a simple solution that does not include more taxes.

The greatest problem is that these facilities inherently serve BOTH private and public purposes.  The CIB facilities serve customers, but also the nearby local businesses and our collective sense of importance in hosting the undefeated Colts.  The airport serves passengers, but also economic development.   The Monon Center offers an alternative health club, but also provides subsidized recreational programs.  The CRPAC offers ticketed cultural events, but also subsidizes local arts groups and stimulates the hospitality and retail arts industry.

In each case, the public is confused because it is not clear what part of the capital and operating costs are due to private and public uses.  It is not clear what part of the costs are being paid by the users and what is being picked up by the public through current and future taxes.

Political and civic leaders would be well served to clarify these “buckets” of costs, benefits and responsibilities in the future.  It is not easy to do and any well-defined fence will be inherently arbitrary and sub-optimal.  However, the political costs of an ostrich approach are now apparent.  I’m sure that many local leaders decided that this “direct” communications style would be impossible, because well-informed Hoosiers would choose to NOT invest in any ventures where each did not personally receive an ROI.   I point to the overwhelming success of the Wishard Hospital campaign as a counterexample.  I point to the recent consensus that requires schools and other local groups to seek voter approval as a situation of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

State leaders should review these investments and outline a state review process that meets the public needs.  There is an inherent bias towards overinvestment by civic and political leaders.  Many constituencies benefit greatly in the short-run from major projects.  The operating deficits are often a decade away.  The positive ego benefits of creating 50-300 year monuments is too attractive.

Future capital projects should be required to clearly explain public and private benefits, costs and funding sources.  The projects should protect taxpayers at a level equal to bondholders.  Contingency funds should be included to handle the typical 5 year business cycles.   Even with these constraints, our local leaders will be able to justify investments in viable projects.