Tag: capitalism

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.

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.

Self-Improving Systems

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

General systems theory was outlined in the post-WWII era when innovative thinkers began to consider how and why biological and ecological systems worked — or sometimes didn’t work.  Subsequent applied and theoretical work expanded the use of these insights.  Most importantly, we now understand that successful systems must be self-preserving, self-controlling and potentially self-improving.

A self-controlling system is often described using the thermostat model.  A system has a goal, a measurement device, the ability to compare actual with desired results and some action taken to return the system back within its control limits.  More sophisticated systems have secondary feedback loops to check the measurement, feedback and action steps.  Self-improving systems also have some built-in driver that improves the goal and results through time.

Most development economists have concluded that in the long-run productivity improvements are the key to economic well-being, far surpassing the contributions of simple resource availability.  Productivity improvements are created by individuals’ insights and brilliance, but more often by the cumulative results of self-improving processes.  Hence, our economic future depends upon the broad application of self-improving systems.

The biological model of evolution shows that “survival of the fittest” results in populations that are best ready to thrive in the range of environments encountered historically.  On average, this means that existing species are well positioned for most futures.  It does not rule out decimation due to some new environment, competitor or predator.   Biological pressures through the impact of pollution or global warming could threaten the beneficial effects of the biological model on economic growth.

Biologists and some anthropologists also say that our natural family and other small groups have developed to meet the needs of the species.  In spite of the many changes in culture since the “enlightenment”, these built-in relationships seem solid and provide a self-preserving parenting and small group cycle.

The development of the scientific method and use of peer reviews transformed science from natural philosophy, alchemy and astrology into a cumulative force for progress in scientific understanding.  This force has had a great economic benefit, expanding the use of the scientific method to a broader and broader sphere.  While philosophers and politicians raise valid questions about the ethical use of scientific discoveries, the march of science continues.

Representative democracy with “checks and balances” has also functioned as a self-improving system.  We now understand the need for cultural support for the rule of law.  We know that a variety of representative democratic systems can work well.  We know that there are sometimes populist, military or ruling class pressures that can undermine or destroy a democratic system.  We understand that democracies are often slow, sub-optimal and inconsistent.  Nonetheless, representative democracy has generally been a force for economic progress.  The consensus that western style democracy will be the dominant form of enlightened governance model was much stronger a decade ago, but remains the likely choice for most countries.

Economic systems like capitalism and international trade can also be seen as self-improving systems.  Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and David Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage lead competing interests to naturally improve their performance through time.  Modern economists generally agree that capitalism is not automatically “ideal” due to market failures, monopolies, public goods, externalities, unequal distribution of income, deadweight costs of booms, busts and bubbles, and the potential sustained waste of resources due to inadequate demand.  Recommended solutions to these shortcomings that can be implemented through the political process.  As with representative democracy, some form of regulated capitalism is an ongoing positive force for economic growth.

Finally, the systematic adoption of formal quality measurement and improvement systems by most organizations is another form of self-improving system.  By clearly defining goals, measuring progress, adapting and providing support structures that encourage process re-engineering and continuous process improvement, organizations have found that annual productivity improvements are possible in nearly all areas.  The quality revolution continues to expand its reach, moving from operations areas into overhead, service, government and not-for-profit applications.  The set of quality tools and best practices continues to grow.  The pressures of the economic and political marketplaces make sure that this will be a source of progress.

There are areas of modern life where self-improving systems do not provide built-in assurance of progress in the future.  Culture, religion and international relations do not work as self-improving systems today.

Historically, culture continued through inertia or the reinforcing interests of the ruling groups in society.  Without changes in the environment, a self-preserving system was common, even if a self-improving system was not.  Today’s increased level of global communications and cultural awareness provides support to avoid the total disintegration of culture.  The lack of thought leaders or leading cultural influencers today means that subcultures may improve, but the overall culture is not positioned for progress.

Religions were historically integrated with culture and reinforced them.  The “enlightenment” development of secular viewpoints and increased awareness of world religions has greatly complicated attempts by any one religion or ecumenical group to create a self-improving religious system.  Historic attempts to more deeply analyze a religion often resulted in inflexible forms such as scholasticism.  Attempts at reformation with ongoing evolution of doctrine resulted in splinter groups or fatal dilution of core content.  Within the secular humanist tradition, some progress is made through self-help books and applied psychology, but most observers would say that the self-awareness of existential philosophy has been a mixed blessing for people trying to create their own forms of meaning in life.

International relations is also a system without inherent stability.  Contradictory philosophical views dating back to the Greeks have enthusiastic supporters.  The idealistic goals of the United Nations and other world organizations are appealing, but the institutions do not clearly ensure the ongoing improvement of the human condition.  Greater economic and political integration in Europe is offset by the expansion of the number of nation states.  Mutually assured destruction evolved as a self-preserving system at a time of 2 superpowers, but provides no such assurance today.  The rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China to complement the US, Europe and Japan creates a multi-polar world without a clear system for ongoing improvements or avoidance of major conflicts.

The rise of self-improving systems in biology, science, economics, national governance and quality processes provides hope for a future of unlimited possibilities.  The lack of self-improving systems for culture, religion and international relations raises major concerns for the future.