If you want to understand the state of the market-fundamentalist right, I highly, highly recommend this short essay from Anne Rathbone Bradley in the new @ISI@ModAgeJournal symposium on the humane economy. isi.org/modern-age/hum…
Bradley's definition of a "humane economy" focuses on "greater output" and "greater choices, not just in coffee tables but for all goods and services that we need and want."
She acknowledges that "male wages did begin to decline in 1973," which she attributes in large part to women entering the labor force, and says, "this is a good thing for families" that "allows them greater choices."
She actually suggests that increased manufacturing-sector productivity is why "you can purchase a coffee table on Amazon and have it delivered to your front door in a few days," which is hard to square with the actual places Amazon coffee tables tend to be manufactured...
The policy prescriptions, you will be unsurprised to learn, are "to reduce the size and scope of government in every [EVERY!] direction." This means we should "repudiate" the war on drugs, the war on poverty, "and general government intervention in and regulation of industry."
"Allowing markets to direct innovation will," Bradley assures us, "provide families with choices that best suit them."
There's an internal consistency here: Reducing government indiscriminately will lead to markets offering a certain kind of choice which will lead to gains in things like quickly-delivered coffee tables. And if that's your definition of "humane economy," mission accomplished.
Fortunately, wide-variety-of-cheap-coffee tables (most of which seem to fold out so you can eat dinner in front of the TV) is almost no one's definition of a humane economy. At which point market fundamentalism falls apart (and so will that coffee table, in a couple of years...).
Here's my own contribution to @ISI@ModAgeJournal's Humane Economy symposium. "Good luck spotting the difference in well-being between a society of modest, boxy televisions and one of wall-spanning panel displays." isi.org/modern-age/hum…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
And by the way, cutting taxes when they raise only 16% of GDP, while we spend more than 20%, just isn't going to happen. Shouldn't happen. Can't happen. Money's not free.
So if you're focused on tax cuts, that's really just a way of staying you're focused on nothing. Not great.
The new @AmerCompass collection begins from a simple premise: the information revolution of the past 30 years has brought about the most consequential technological transformation since the industrial revolution 200 years ago. 🧵
2/ An important thing to understand about the industrial revolution is that it actually made people pretty miserable for a pretty long time -- decades of stagnant to declining wages, declining health and life expectancy, people literally got shorter!
3/ Eventually, policymakers caught up, recognizing that the state needed to play a different role in an industrial economy than it had in an agrarian one. Indentured children in factories and mines were not the same as children working on the family farm.
I appreciate @DonFSchneider taking the time to reply to my recent essay, We're Just Speculating Here... The Rise of Wall Street and the Fall of American Investment. But I'm not persuaded by his "no investment decline" thesis. Two points in particular:
1. I do see "much weakness in equipment" in his chart -- at least the last ten straight years of data below his long-run average. Here's net investment as % of GDP by decade:
1960s, 1.7%
1970s, 1.9%
1980s, 1.4%
1990s, 1.5%
2000s, 1.3%
2010s, 1.2%
2. Using the GDP deflator for private nonresidential fixed investment to get "real net investment" is facially untenable. He provides the chart. It basically shows no inflation for 40 years. Companies get about as much for $100 in 2020 as they did in 1980.
Thread (1/12). How have Wall Street's fortunes diverged so radically from Main Street's in recent decades? I think a large part of the explanation comes down to our misunderstanding of the word "investment." Most "investors" are doing nothing of the sort. americancompass.org/essays/specula…
2/ My new research brief @AmerCompass classifies publicly traded companies as "Sustainers" or "Eroders" depending on whether they are investing faster than they use up their past investments. Our economy has undergone a transformation. americancompass.org/essays/the-cor…
3/ Half a century ago, the vast majority of companies were Sustainers -- actively investing to grow their capital stock. Now Eroders predominate, returning record amounts of cash to shareholders even as they fail to make the investments they need.
Data on the performance of hedge funds and private equity in the COVID crash's wake is now available and, as @wellscking shows in the latest @AmerCompass Coin-Flip Capitalism update, the picture is not pretty. americancompass.org/essays/coin-fl…
The defense of hedge funds and their disastrously subpar returns in recent years has always been that they are specifically designed NOT to track the market and they provide value precisely because their performance is uncorrelated.
Amazon has repeatedly pushed the envelope on labor practices and then retreated or claimed to reform in the face of bad PR. Come with me on a brief tour of the past decade:
2011: "Instead, they said they were pushed harder and harder to work faster and faster until they were terminated, they quit or they got injured. Those interviewed say turnover at the warehouse is high and many hires don't last more than a few months." mcall.com/news/watchdog/…
2011 contd: "During summer heat waves, Amazon arranged to have paramedics parked in ambulances outside, ready to treat any workers who dehydrated or suffered other forms of heat stress. ... And new applicants were ready to begin work at any time." mcall.com/news/watchdog/…