Tag: Economic Policy

  • Demographics and Economic Growth

    Demographics and Economic Growth

    The Future Manufacturing Labor Force

     

    SUMMARY

    This post is a summary of some of the themes of previous posts on demographic and population projections, with an emphasis on how demographics impact economic growth. See bibliography at the end of this post. For a list of all blog posts on a wide variety of topics, see List of Posts by Topic on my blog.

     

    Almost all countries outside of Africa are already facing or will soon face below replacement birth rates. Without immigration, this could lead first to smaller labor forces with greater numbers of retired citizens. Eventually, however, both the number of workers and retired citizens will decrease. During both stages of the transition, there will be issues of how to increase total output, maintain standards of living, and allocate income between the two major age groups. For background, see Global Demographics and Population Projections.

     

    Population and economies can growth even if birth rates are below replacement. But eventually both economic output and real income per capita fall unless countered by migrations, new technology that increase productivity, or organizational, political and societal change. Societies will have to manage these transitions to avoid economic and political crises.

     

    The first country that has started on the demographic declining path for wealthy nations is Japan. The depopulation curve starts with a slow descent, then accelerating. Japan has until 2030 to prepare for the rapid decrease in total population and the labor force age group. For details, see Demographics and Population Projections of Japan.

    Other countries – China, countries in Southeast Asia, and countries in Central Europe – will soon face the same demographic trends as Japan.

     

    The countries outside of Africa will have a collective labor shortage; the countries inside Africa will have a collective labor surplus. Wealthy industrialized or industrializing countries with declining populations will have different problems and strategic alternatives than poorer countries that have above replacement birth rates and increasing populations. For details about global population projections and the demographics of these two types of countries, see Global Demographics and Population Projections.

     

    Immigrants into the wealthier countries will be one way to counter a dwindling labor force. Some of the immigrant will come from countries with declining labor forces. Immigrants will be especially in demand in the “service” sector with rising numbers of older citizens needing medical care and other services. In the United States, immigrants, both legal and undocumented, are also crucial for new construction, farm labor, restaurants, and various service and maintenance industries. But until the labor shortage becomes critical, there will be continuing political opposition to immigration.

     

    An aging population plus increased immigration of different ethnic and religious groups may be necessary for economic growth but also a recipe for political conflict. Aging populations tend to become more conservative, less likely to support change, but more in need of immigrant service employees.

     

    Changing demographics will influence the national and global allocation of labor. Decisions about allocation of labor – outsourcing, immigration – will sharpen the conflict between national policies and the global economy. Corporations have different strategies and objectives then national governments.

     

    Changing demographics will influence the mix of supply and demand. In wealthier countries, more of the economic and political decisions will be driven by the increasing population of the elderly, including public support for health care services and biotechnology research. In poor countries, the economic objective will be how to grow rapidly to employ a quickly growing labor force.

     

    There are three substitutes for a country’s shrinking labor force – immigration, investment in innovation and new technology, and organizational innovation and more productive employees. Better educated and trained employees and researchers are crucial for innovation and economic development. The new technologies of robotics and AI may reduce the long-run demand for the human labor force, especially in areas of white collar data processing and analysis jobs, although both will create new jobs demanding a high skill level.

     

    How will governments and societies cope with the triple problems of declining populations, supporting an aging population and the cost of mitigating global warming?

     

    THE ACCOUNTING IDENTITY OF ECONOMIC GROWTH

     

    The accounting identity here is a framework to explore implications of a shrinking labor force for economic growth and development.

     

    An accounting identity says nothing about causality, assumptions or feedback. But it introduces some general issues.

     

    The following accounting identity shows the sources of economic growth:

     

    The economic growth rate (growth rate of total output) roughly equals the growth rate of the labor force plus the increase in labor productivity (output per member of the labor force).

     

    If the labor force numbers are stable, all of the increase in output depends on the increase in productivity. The pressure on productivity is even greater if the labor force numbers are decreasing.  So, for example, if a labor force is increasing at about 1% per year and productivity is increasing at about 1% per year, output will increase about 2% per year. If the workforce stops growing, productivity will have to double to 2% to yield the same economic growth. If the workforce were to decrease at 1% a year, as it is in some countries already, productivity would have to increase 3% a year to achieve 2% economic growth. This is a high productivity growth rate for a developed economy.

    Declining population, declining labor force and some increase in productivity could lead to higher standards of living (real income and consumption per person). But the demographic trends, without other changes, might lead to less innovation and lower or negative rates of productivity growth.

     

    Low rates of productivity growth with accelerating rates of labor force and population decline could also lead to less output (negative growth rates) and declining standards of living.

     

    LABOR SUBSTITUTES

     

    A member of the industrial/information labor force today is better educated, with new skills, working with better capital equipment and IT inputs, compared to a member of the labor force a generation or two ago. The difference should show up as an increase in labor productivity. Increase in total factor productivity is due to innovation in capital equipment – including information technology – combined with employees with new skills and knowledge. Other factors included economies of scale, network effects, public investment and organizational innovation.

     

    Capital investment, technological innovation, and organizational change are substitutes for labor. The composition of the declining labor force will change.

     

    2-3% sustained productivity growth is unlikely without a dramatic impact from AI-augmented robots, AI-augmented business software, advances in new energy and production processes, and, possibly, quantum computing. Unit costs and prices are falling for a wide range of new outputs – EVs, solar panels and systems, energy from other renewables, hydrogen, large batteries and carbon capture.

     

    Changing demographics will help direct the actual products and services of the new technology.

     

    Some white-collar, middle-class jobs will be eliminated and replaced by software like AI, which will become more sophisticated in the future. AI programs are already able to analyze large quantities of specialized data and quickly reach conclusions and devise strategies. While AI and other new technologies will create technology jobs there is a fear that for the first time in the history of the Industrial Revolution, more jobs may be eliminated than created by new technology. Labor-intensive manufacturing and white collar data processing may be hit the hardest. One possibility is that high-wage, advanced technology systems may replace labor-intensive economic processes in low-wage countries. The economic disruption may be less if matched by a decreasing number of workers.

     

    The new information technologies may primarily affect white-collar jobs, unlike past industrial technologies that mostly affected blue-collar jobs.

     

    There will possibly be a greater importance of a globally connected and managed economy. Multinational companies will develop and control technology and globally allocate labor and other inputs. This might increase conflicts between the objectives of multinational companies and national governments.

     

    DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEMAND

     

    Demographics also influence the demand side of economies. Americans spend more money on pet products and services than on childcare. In South Korea, which has the lowest birth rate in the world, consumers spend more money on “baby carriages” for pets than for human babies.

     

    Companies use demographic information when planning marketing and advertising strategies. Changing demographics are analyzed when developing new products, changing product mix, and segmenting markets. The explosion of detailed demographic information about smaller and smaller segments, down to individuals, combined with online marketing technology and almost real-time data analysis algorithms, is revolutionizing marketing and advertising.

     

    Companies are using this data and analysis to fine tune pricing strategies such as price discrimination and dynamic pricing.

     

    Autonomous driving vehicles and robotaxis should find a huge demand from older Americans, the number of whom are expected to double in the next 20 years.

     

     IMPLICATIONS FOR ECONOMIC POLICY

     

    In the past, there was a correlation between industrialization and secular increases in population. There were also national and international allocation of labor. A large number of people left Europe between 1815 and 1914, especially at the start of the second stage of the Industrial Revolution around 1870. An estimated 60 million people emigrated from Europe. They opened up new agricultural lands in other countries and provided some of the labor force for the new factories, mines, and railroads. The United States also experienced a large immigration of Latin American and Asian groups, starting in the 1960s. There was also large internal migration within countries. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution created new economic groups including industrial entrepreneurs, industrial work force, investment bankers, and a new technical and managerial middle class. This led to political conflict between traditional elites and the new groups, fights for political power and status. This also led to a call for economic and political reforms – the Populist and Progressive movements around 1900.

     

    The standard economic models demonstrate that the demographic changes we saw over the last 200 years are a function of economic growth and development. Industrializing, urbanizing populations have declining birth rates. The experience of the poorer regions of the world tends to indicate that these demographic changes can occur even without economic growth and development because of imported modern health and the spread of primary education. The challenge for low and middle-income countries now is the danger of “getting gray before getting rich.”

    Although wealthier countries concentrate on the costs of their rapidly growing retired population, for most of the world the critical question over the next two generations will be how to accelerate economic growth to provide jobs and opportunity for the growing working age population.  The related challenge is how to improve education, training and economic opportunity to raise standards of living now to provide the resources for the aging population in the future. 

     

    For the entire world, these objectives are complicated by how to pay for the social costs of past industrialization and environmental degradation, and the future costs of climate change.

     

    Over the next 40 years, the global population is expected to increase by 1.7 to 2.0 billion people, despite below replacement birth rates in most of the world. Although wealthier countries will concentrate on the costs of their rapidly growing retired population, for much of the world the critical question over the next two generations will be how to accelerate economic growth to provide jobs and opportunity for the growing working age population. Part of the challenge is how to improve education, training, and economic opportunity to raise standards of living now to provide the resources for the aging population in the future. 

     

    For the entire world, these objectives are complicated by how to pay for the social costs of past industrialization and environmental degradation, and the future costs of climate change. This will be a major part of future investment and a possible source of income and employment, especially for the technically educated.

     

    In the long run, the positive side of declining global population may probably be less demand for resources. It depends on fewer people versus higher standards of living and changing preferences. Combined with substitute technology, global warming might slow down or stop. Climate change might not have quite the devastating effects trend projections indicate.

     

    The advanced and industrialized countries with stable or declining populations and labor forces will have to consider the following:

     

    Economic growth will have to come from large increases in productivity (output per member of the workforce). To achieve this, and also meet social welfare costs, most countries and regions such as the European Union will have to make changes in economic policies. Particularly disruptive and contentious will be the adoption of automated factories and offices. On the positive side they will increase labor and total productivity; on the negative side they will probably eliminate a large number of existing and future jobs. Retirement ages and requirements might change, depending on political resistance. Tax laws will have to change.

     

    Even in the United States, a large increase in retirement age populations is leading to potential underfunding of public and private pension funds. Taxes to fund public pension funds are rising, both in amount and as percent of federal, state and local budgets. Despite this, unfunded liabilities – promised future benefits not covered by projected future revenue – are also rising. The $300 billion/year deficit in social security funding after the trust fund runs out in 2034 will probably be paid for by an increase in general government expenditures. 

    The United States is already experiencing large yearly fiscal deficits and a very large and rapidly-rising national debt. For the present and future impact of these trends on federal government budgets, see

    Government Finance 101:  Fiscal Policy. Can’t Anyone Add?

     

    Multinational corporations will develop and adopt the new technology. Countries that do not have quality education, invest in public infrastructure, fund scientific research, encourage innovation and change economic incentives will not be able to attract foreign and domestic investment and compete in the global economy. And their best educated and most motivated people may emigrate.

     

    On the other hand, poor countries with decent transportation, energy and communication infrastructure will probably attract foreign investment. Real wages of at least part of the labor force will rise.

     

    Attitudes towards immigration might change from the current restrictive policies of some countries. Attracting “human capital” will be just as important as attracting investment capital. Trans-border movement of people will increase. New national, regional and international agreements will have to be negotiated.  Remittances back to the home country will be a more important part of the economy of many countries and global capital flows. 

     

    Attitudes about work, labor laws, retirement and retirement ages will change. The benchmark age of 65 was arbitrarily set by Bismarck almost 150 years ago when a very small percent of the German population lived that long. When the United States adopted Social Security, life expectancy was 56 years. The life expectancy of America’s younger workers is already around 80 years.

     

    The Japanese government and elites seem to have accepted declining population, slow (if any) economic growth, social stability and rising per capita income. They are increasing immigrant labor but there is a limit. They will export capital, earning income from overseas investments. They will outsource production of Japanese companies and export manufacturing technology, including robots. Whether all industrialized, wealthy countries can adopt the same policies at the same time seems unlikely.

     

    What is uncertain is whether or not the Japanese government can continue to fund domestic expenditures by running large deficits. Global interest rates were low until 2022. This assumes that Japanese are willing to lend their savings to the government. Maybe part of an implicit social contract that the money will be spend on services for the elderly.

     

    Other countries facing a “Japanese future” do not have the resources (per capita income and tax base) that Japan has. Many other countries do not have the political and cultural stability that Japan has. Hardly any country realizes this is soon going to be their number one domestic problem.

     

    Countries are already facing the domestic problem of needing more immigrants to augment the declining labor force in the face of rising opposition against immigration. Without immigration, some countries will be facing declining output and lower standards of living. This will probably increase domestic anger and stresses. Rather than Japanese stability, there will be further instability fueled by increasingly shrill populist, nativist politicians.

     

    More people will see they are living in a “zero-sum” country where more domestic resources will have to be allocated to a rapidly increasing older population It could be that political battles will be fought over age-based “income inequality.” 

     

    If taxes on the working population go up, this might further discourage economic development (innovation and risk-taking) and growth. The exception may be for products and services aimed at senior citizens. 

     

    Demographics are heavily influencing the areas of investment in wealthy countries; these sectors will drive future economic growth. Three current active areas of research and net investment are robots and AI (reaction to declining workforce), autonomous driving and robotaxis (aging population) and biotechnology (aging population).

     

    How will governments and societies cope with the triple problems of declining populations, the cost of mitigating global warming, and supporting an aging population? With dysfunctional societies and governments, large and growing budget deficits and national debts, opposition to immigration, on top of existing political, ideological and economic problems?

     

    The solutions may have to be global. This suggests increasing conflict between national governments (and their power elites) protecting privileges, national identity and sovereingty. This appears to be happening in the European Union. Maybe national governments can by replaced by international organizations whose members are not national governments. Some possible alternatives might be multinational corporations and privately-funded NGOs.

     

    Fighting global warming, especially reducing the burning of fossil fuels, may pose an economic threat to poor countries dependent on “extractive” industries. Developing and poor countries whose economies depend on exporting raw materials – fossil fuels, minerals, agricultural goods – may have a particularly difficult time. 

     

    Increasing population and rising real income in emerging economies, especially in Asia, are increasing the demand for energy. A dramatic increase in the number of cars in Asia is the main reason for the continuing increase in global demand for oil.  Increased demand for electricity is being partly met with new power plants burning fossil fuels. For at least another generation, these trends will make it difficult to meet global goals to drastically slow down or stop global warming.

     

    DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEMAND

     

    Demographics also influence the demand side of economies. Americans spend more money on pet products and services than on childcare. In South Korea, which has the lowest birth rate in the world, consumers spend more money on “baby carriages” for pets than for human babies.

     

    The large increase in the Hispanic population in the United States has created a demand for new types of food and restaurants, new source of popular music, Spanish language TV and radio, bi-lingual teachers, imported beer, shifts in airline travel, and higher income remittance services. Chili is the go-to food at many Super Bowl parties.

     

    Companies use demographic information when planning marketing and advertising strategies. Changing demographics are analyzed when developing new products, changing product mix, and segmenting markets. The explosion of detailed demographic information about smaller and smaller segments, down to individuals, combined with online marketing technology and almost real-time data analysis algorithms, is revolutionizing marketing and advertising.

     

    Companies are using this data and analysis to fine tune pricing strategies such as price discrimination and dynamic pricing.

     

    An aging population has increased demand for health care, retirement communities, RVs, leisure activities such as cruises, robot companions (in Japan), and reverse mortgages. Autonomous driving vehicles and robotaxis should find a huge demand from older Americans, the number of whom are expected to double in the next 20 years.

     

    South Korea has the lowest birth rate in the world. Sales of “baby carriages” for pets is greater than sales for human babies.

     

    DEMOGRAPHICS AND SUPPLY

     

    If there are labor shortages, the result may be larger salary increases. Corporations may then step-up investment in labor-saving technologies, especially if immigration in the wealthier regions is limited by the political backlash.

     

    The shortage of workers may accelerate the development of robotics and AI to substitute for workers. Economic growth will depend more than in the past 250 years on economic development, innovation, new technology and productivity increases than on population and labor force growth. The quality of workers – their education, skills and knowledge – will be more important than their numbers.

     

    Demographics will change attitudes about retirement, immigration, employment and unemployment, automation, work and leisure, and economic growth. Retirement programs may be especially strained as the ratio of retired people to working people goes up.

     

     

    DEMOGRAPHICS AND FOOD PRODUCTION

     

    Demographics is interacting with climate change in another important area – food production. Many scientists believe the most serious effect of climate change will be its impact on food production. 

     

    Global warming and more extreme weather events will make it more difficult to expand food production using current technology. As in other areas, trend projections can be changed by the development of new technology such as drought-resistant strains of grains.

     

    The global population will include about 1.7 to 2.0 billion more people between now and the 2060s. The challenge here is how to feed them, on top of rising food consumption per capita in emerging economies and possible negative effects of rising temperatures on food production, especially in tropical areas.

     

    Technology is a substitute for using more land. Yields per acre have gone up dramatically in the last 75 years. In the U.S in the last 100 years, tractors eventually replaced about 23 million horses and mules. About 60 million acres of cropland planted to feed the horses and mules were freed up. Farms became larger and reduced the number of workers needed to produce food. (The Economist, “A Short History of Tractors in English,” December 23, 2023, 20-21.)

     

    Expanding agriculture, and highly productive modern agriculture, are now a threat to the environment and a cause of climate change and environmental degradation. Examples are the burning of tropical forests, depletion of aquifers, and heavy use of fossil fuels to run machinery and produce nitrogen fertilizer and farm chemicals.

     

    Food producers in industrialized areas may find that declining populations mean lower sales. But exports to poorer regions with increasing populations may rise.

     

    SPECULATIONS AND SUMMARY

     

    Static or declining labor forces outside of Africa mean economic growth will mostly depend on increases in productivity. To counter demographic trends, technological innovation leading to high rates of productivity growth will be necessary to increase standards of living (real income per person).

     

    Rising population in poor countries make high rates of economic growth both pressing and difficult. Emigration pressure from poor regions of the world will probably increase unless there are high rates of economic growth in poor countries.

     

    Most of the world’s population increase will take place in cities and surrounding metropolitan areas, creating even larger massive urban areas. Large urban areas are increasing rapidly in poorer countries.

     

    It is nearly impossible to predict technological and organizational change over the next 25 or 50 years. This will help determine if increases in productivity will counter the decrease in the size of the working population.

     

    Demographics interact with global economic and environmental trends. More people mean more food and more consumption products and services, which means more energy and technological inputs. At the same time, new technology must reduce carbon-emitting energy and production processes. 

     

     

     

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

     

    DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMICS

     

    I believe that projections and related analysis of demographics should be the starting point of any long-range planning. There is time to implement strategies that mitigate the probable negative impact of these trends. For the data, see

     

    Global Demographics and Population Projections

     

    The United States may be one country that avoids experiencing declining population and labor force. For details on how this may be possible, see

     

    Demographics, Immigration and Future Economic Growth of the United States

     

    Japan is already on the declining labor force and population curve. It also has the world’s oldest population. For details, see

     

    Demographics and Population Projections of Japan


    For a case study of the difficulties of an African country trying to develop, see


    Nigeria

    For a discussion on why England and America had the prerequisites to start the Industrial Revolution and continued to economically develop, see 

    THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND

     

    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England

    Adam Smith’s Pin Factory

     

    Josiah Wedgwood, the Wedgwood Pottery Company, and the Beginning of the Industrial Revolution

     

    A Cautionary Tale – England and the Industrial Revolution

    AMERICAN ECONOMIC HISTORY

     

    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in America

     

    How America Industrialized and Became Wealthy

     

    Alice in Wonderland and the Origins of Silicon Valley

     

    AMERICAN HISTORY

     

    The classic book on colonial immigration is David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed. For a much shorter study of colonial American immigration, and an introduction to some long-term consequences, see

     

    American Colonial History, 1607-1775


    For a case study of a country (multi-national empire) undergoing industrialization, internal migration, the rise of new classes, and heightened social and political tensions, see

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire Before World War I

     

  • Who Do You Fear More, Big Business or Big Government?

    OK, who do you fear more, big government or big business?  

    Historically, Americans saw a relatively small government with regulatory powers as a check on monopoly and big business.  But the rise of big government because of the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, and the Great Society changed that.  Americans had a choice.  There was a general consensus that we had to spend a lot of money for national and international security during the Cold War.  But the expansion of the social welfare state and environmental regulations changed attitudes towards the federal government.  The two largest programs of the social welfare state, Social Security and Medicare, have been financed by very large tax increases. These tax increases are somewhat offset by federal income tax cuts.  

    Since the 1980s, there has been a well-financed campaign to roll back the regulation of big business, especially the finance sector. This campaign has been successful.  Most populist outrage, despite the financial system causing a recession, structural unemployment and large federal budget deficits, is now directed at government, as opposed to big business in the past. Attention is focused on the effects, not the underlying causes, which are still there. 

    Limiting government social welfare programs has somehow been tied to even less regulation and oversight of big business.  How did this happen?  

    One reason is that much of the financing of the Tea Party movement and organizations like ALEC come from big businesses and the very wealthy owners and managers who control them. Many of them share the Tea Party and Christian right outrage over lack of government regulation and prohibition of personal behavior they find morally reprehensible.  Somehow, a generalized anger and rage over government protection and even support of this behavior has been channeled to limiting government regulation of business, including rollback of environmental legislation and regulation.

    The logical Republican candidate for president, representing this generalized fear directed as loathing of government, is Donald Trump.

    The American political nightmare in the past has been that big business and big government become partners rather than adversaries. There are exceptions. We accepted it in the areas of defense technology and infrastructure spending. We denounced it if it led to regulatory capture or was a barrier to technological progress. We were angry if we believed that the rich were using government to transfer income from the middle class to themselves.  We seem to have lost this outrage.

    In addition, this cooperation has been raised to new levels with the need for huge sums of money to get elected and virtually no limits or accountability because of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing super PACs. They channel large sums of money to support candidates who tap into widespread fear and anger about American society and government.  These elected officials are also pro-business (reduce taxes on the rich and corporations, less environmental regulation, no anti-trust, no oversight of financial companies) or at least anti-government, which amounts to the same economic policies.

    It really isn’t a question of “getting government out of people’s lives.”  Social conservatives want more government interference in individuals’ lives. It seems to be a question of big business not paying the social costs of a capitalist economic system. It’s a question of getting government out of big businesses’ lives. Regulatory capture has become total government capture.

    The stagnation of middle class incomes and rising income inequality, the threat of widespread unemployment because of automation and AI, and the huge rise in temps and “consultants” without any benefits don’t seem to be major political issues. Why? Who makes the decisions that result in all this? Who outsources jobs to China and threaten American workers with more outsourcing, keeping wages down? Who eliminates pensions and other fringe benefits? Who wiped out home equity for ten million homeowners? Who is buying record numbers of robots to replace workers? Large corporations, most of which are multinational companies. The result? Record profits and bonuses even in a period of slow economic growth. This is a major reason for the redistribution of income from the middle class to the rich. No wonder the rich are willing to spend a great deal of money to protect this trend from possible government interference.

    And deflect blame. President Trump reflects the belief that America’s economic and employment problems are due to illegal Mexican immigrants and “China.” “China” doesn’t export to the United States; multinational corporations and Chinese companies do. About 60% of imports from China come from American and foreign multinationals. Much of the exports of Chinese companies are part of the global supply chain of American companies.

    Perversely, the debate seems to be centered on conservative attacks on the increased cost of programs like unemployment benefits, disability benefits, Medicaid and Obamacare, nutrition aid for poor mothers and infants, and food stamps.  Programs for the poor, sick and unemployed.  Major reductions in social welfare and social safety net programs are at the heart of Republican budget proposals. These cuts are necessary to keep the Bush and Trump tax cuts for upper-income families and corporations without increasing the yearly deficits.   

    The only realistic way smaller deficits will happen, let alone a balanced budget, is a combination of strong economic growth – creating strong growth in tax revenue – and tax increases, mostly disguised as eliminating deductions and subsidies.

    The Republican rhetoric about smaller deficits is ideological cover for slashing social welfare and other programs that conservatives oppose. 

    For the first time in American history, populist anger is aimed at government, not big business.  The federal government is seen as supporting programs and groups that are anathema to conservatives. Big business has supported this attitude in return for support for pro-business policies. You could call this ideological capture.

    The situation is made worse by a zero-sum mentality. In a world of low growth and increased fear and insecurity, there is less room for compromise. There is widespread middle class perception that minority groups and the poor are getting unfair amounts of social welfare benefits that come out of middle class taxes. This is ironic since the two largest social welfare programs are Social Security and Medicare, which overwhelmingly benefit the middle class, and the lower half of the middle class do not pay any income tax. And, sadly, we seem to be losing any sense of shared community or compassion for others. 

    We are seeing government in a period of disruptivd social and economic change.  Over the last 50 years, we have become a more tolerant, open and inclusive society. One result of this is behavior and culture that many people, not just conservatives, find distasteful or immoral. Combining this moral outrage with economic insecurity and a fear of the loss of power and status, is a potent political combination. The irony is that conservatives want to use the coercive powers of government to limit or outlaw some of these consequences. 

  • The World Turned Upside Down:  The Uselessness of Conventional Economic Wisdom

    The World Turned Upside Down: The Uselessness of Conventional Economic Wisdom

    There is a story, possibly true,
    that when the British surrendered to American and French forces at Yorktown,
    effectively ending British rule of America, someone in the British army sang or
    played an old English folk song, “The World Turned Upside Down.”   (See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Turned_Upside_Down)

    I think I know how the British felt.  Many of the assumptions economists have made about
    economic reality and economic policies now seem out-of-date or even reversed.

    UNITED STATES

    The Fed fought inflation; now it
    sets inflation targets when there is no inflation.

    The Fed worries about deflation even
    though the major source is a fall in energy and commodity prices. Another source is the fall in the prices of technology products.

    There is a large increase in the money supply, large government deficits, a large trade deficit, and a large decrease in the unemployment rate. Economic theory and past experience says that there should be an increasing inflation rate. There isn’t.

    America is experiencing a long
    period of real economic growth without inflation.  Unemployment is as low as realistically
    possible.  Rather than rejoicing,
    economic, business and political commentators seem to believe there is
    something fundamentally wrong with this.

    Since the end of World War II, a key
    part of American foreign policy has been the expansion of free trade.  Now presidential candidates of both parties,
    and over half the American people, want to reverse free trade.  Economic nationalism is rising at the same
    time as large American corporations are about to receive over half their sales
    and profits from overseas operations.

    America worried about importing too
    much oil; now America is worried about producing too much oil.

    Interest rates are important because
    they are the price of capital, which determines how capital is allocated.  Now interest rates are a policy tool of the
    Fed.  They are artificially low with no
    thought about how they are affecting capital allocation.

    The stock market was a place where
    companies went to raise new capital. 
    Now, through massive share buybacks, it is a place where companies
    reduce equity capital.

    It has been government policy that
    annual budget deficits are manageable as long as the national debt-to-nominal
    GDP ratio was low.  That is, as long as
    the national debt rose at a lower rate than nominal GDP.  But since 2008, the national debt has risen
    much faster than nominal GDP.  We are
    experiencing historically high and rising peacetime national debt-to-GDP ratios.  So far, there has been little consequence
    because of historically low interest rates. 
    If nominal interest rates rise, there will be larger budget deficits. 

    Seven years into a recovery interest
    rates and inflation rates should be rising. 
    No one could conceive that central banks in the U.S., Europe, Japan and
    other countries would set zero short-term interest rates this far into the
    recovery.

            

    Negative interest rates, both real
    and nominal, were considered possible but not realistic.  Most industrialized countries have had some
    negative interest rates.

    The Fed stopped looking at the
    increase in the money supply as a policy tool about 30 years ago.  Now a huge increase in the money supply is
    being used to finance a huge increase in the national debt.

    Tax cuts and a larger deficit are traditional tools to fight a recession. They are being advocated as sound fiscal policy at the top of a business cycle.

    An economy can be in recession if
    private spending is too low (inadequate private aggregate demand).  This implies private saving is too high.  The solution is that government spending
    should be increased and/or taxes lowered. 
    The result is a larger government deficit, which is financed by private
    saving.  But with structural deficits at the
    national and state levels, private saving now has to be high to finance
    government deficits. Also, the United States has to continue to take in a high percent of cross-border financial flows.

    CHINA

    By some measures, using purchasing
    price parity (PPP) measurement, the Chinese economy is as big or possibly
    larger than the American economy. 
    (Although many analysts believe the past growth rates and the real
    economy of China are overstated.)

    China has over half of the world’s
    high-speed railroad trackage and intends to increase it by two-thirds over the
    next 10 years.  By 2025, China intends to
    have every city in China with a population of at least a half a million to be
    connected to the high-speed rail network. 
    The point?  China spends substantially
    more on infrastructure than the United States does, and China uses more
    advanced technology. 

    The U.S. high-speed rail
    mileage?  Zero.  Japan has offered to give the U.S. its
    high-speed rail technology.  I think
    that’s called foreign aid.

    China is planning a high-speed
    railroad that will take passengers and freight from Beijing to Moscow in 33
    hours and London in 48 hours.  Some
    sections of the railroad have already been built.  The geopolitical idea is to bypass American
    control of the world’s shipping lanes.

    China has four times as many
    skyscrapers as the United States.

    China has most of the long and high bridges in the world.

    China has more cars than the United
    States. China has more smartphones.

    China produces most of the world’s solar panels. On the other hand, China emits more carbon into the atmosphere than any other country.

    GLOBAL

    Recessions were caused by rising
    global commodity prices.  Now there is a
    fear that a global recession could be caused by falling commodity prices and
    their longer-term consequences.

    In the post-WWII period, there had
    never been a global recession.  Until
    2007-2009.

    At Japan’s current rate of economic growth, their economy will double in size in 100 years. But by then there will be very few, if any, Japanese.

    Almost all countries are experiencing rapidly rising national debt-to-nominal GDP ratios.  Economic history indicates bad things start to happen if the ratio goes over 90%. Many countries, including the U.S., are over 100%.  Japan has the highest ratio at 230%, a ratio no one thought could be possible without catastrophic economic consequences.   But this high and rising ratio is made possible because Japanese families are apparently willing to lend their government unlimited funds at zero interest.

    For decades we have been told that
    we are running out of oil.  Now we are
    told there is too much oil.  Proven reserves
    have been greatly increased and because of improving drilling technology oil
    can be extracted at lower and lower marginal and average cost.

    For four decades, Americans have
    been told that nuclear energy is bad and dangerous.  Now the world is planning on building
    hundreds of nuclear power plants using new technology. This is a major strategy to reduce global
    warming. But not in the United States.

    Electric engines in cars will reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming. Unless the electricity is generated by burning coal or other fossil fuels.

    The world faced a Malthusian future
    of exponential population growth caused by high birth rates, not enough food, and
    the depletion of energy and natural resources. 
    Since then, most of the world has birth rates below replacement and the
    rest of the world has falling birth rates. Industrial countries worry about
    future declining populations and labor forces. 
    Food production has undergone a series of technological revolutions that
    has greatly increased the quantity, if not the quality, of food.  Energy resources are almost unlimited with
    even more technological revolutions on the horizon.

    Since the 1950s, Americans have been
    hearing how other forms of political economy would overcome the U.S.  First 
    Russia, then Germany, then Japan, then
    the Four Dragons of Asia.
        Behind all these predictions was the description
    of the advantages of socialism or state capitalism over our relatively autonomous
    capitalism.
     Commentators suggested we
    adopt some of the government planning policies of these countries.
      We didn’t.  These countries and their economic systems
    turned out not to be a threat to us but they are a warning to China.

    MORE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

    Red wine, dark chocolate, and beer
    were bad for your health.  Now they are
    health foods.  This is my idea of
    progress!

  • American Foreign Policy Since 1991

    American Foreign Policy Since 1991



    Introduction



    The United States
    has been the world’s only superpower since the collapse of the Soviet
    Union in 1991.  In some ways
    it is more difficult to manage foreign policy without concentrating on one big
    rival.



    The United States
    is vastly stronger in military strength than any possible coalition of enemy
    forces.  But since 9/11 we are feeling
    less secure despite huge military and domestic security expenditures.  Our military and national security
    expenditures of around $1.1 trillion are greater than the military expenditures
    of next ten countries combined (and most are allies).  This is a consequence of a professional
    military, a result of eliminating conscription after the Vietnam War, and the
    highly technical (capital intensive) nature of American military forces and strategy. 



    There is almost no national debate on U.S.
    military interventions in other countries. 
    One reason is that most Americans have no direct involvement; they see
    the professional military differently than if we still had the draft and a conscript army.



    There has been little public debate on national security
    strategy since 1991.  Congress has all
    but abdicated its role in foreign policy to the president. We should be asking:



    Is it the wrong strategy for a rapidly changing world?


    Do we rely on military force at the expense of using other
    means? 


    Did America
    change its political and military strategy enough after disintegration of Soviet
    Union? 


    We focused on terrorism after 9/11.  But are we fighting global terrorism with the
    same strategy we used during the Cold War? 



    There have been a number of successes from the U.S.
    point of view.  But they are not directly
    due to America’s
    military might or even an active American foreign policy.



    Eastern European countries join
    NATO and the European Union after the collapse of the Soviet empire.  This is a historical moment – a chance to
    peacefully unite Western and Central Europe.



    The spread of democracy to
    countries without a democratic tradition or experience, especially in Latin
    America and East Asia.  In some cases, democratic groups were able to
    overthrow authoritarian or military regimes that enjoyed American support.



    The shift in control of most economic
    resources from public to private control. 
    Except for some raw materials, almost all of global economic resources are
    now in private hands, especially those of large multinational corporations.  Private companies develop new technology.  A globally integrated economy, I would argue,
    is in America’s
    national interests.




    I would like to discuss four aspects of American foreign
    policy:



    Reliance on massive firepower and technological solutions.


    Lack of knowledgeable leadership in the United
    States.


    Lack of support for democratic, liberal groups in
    authoritarian states.


    Lack of awareness that domestic and foreign policies are
    intertwined.



    Reliance on massive
    firepower and technological solutions.



    It is difficult for American leaders not to think first of a
    military solution to a foreign political problem when we have such a
    magnificent tool as the U.S.
    military. But military interventions have not been politically successful in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq.  American presidents have
    learned that it is easy to invade and conquer but hard to occupy.  Also, as in Iraq
    and Afghanistan,
    lengthy occupations tend to create and strengthen the very political groups we
    seek to destroy. The Taliban is the strongest political group in Afghanistan; the inept occupation of Iraq led to Iran now dominating Iraqi politics and officers of the disbanded Iraqi army joining ISIS.   



    The use of military force without thinking through the
    long-run consequences and how it fits into 


    America’s
    strategic objectives can be futile and expensive.


    Lack of awareness that
    domestic and foreign policies are intertwined.



    For a superpower there is no distinction between domestic
    and foreign policy. Since 9/11, the United States has become a domestic security state; new surveillance powers and technology threaten civil liberties and individual rights to privacy. 

    Domestic economic and social policies have
    consequences for foreign policy and American power.  A few examples:


    Fiscal Policy. 
    After eliminating the self-funding parts of Social Security and
    Medicare, about 40% of the federal budget is currently financed through
    borrowing.  The current deficit is about
    $1 trillion a year.  This is
    approximately equal to total national security costs.  So the high costs of being a superpower is
    being financed through debt. Higher tax revenue because of economic growth will reduce but not eliminate the yearly
    deficit and increase the national debt. The recent combination of a tax cut and increased military spending makes the fiscal situation worse. At some point, American leaders may have to look at the cost of
    national defense and seriously consider major cutbacks.  This will impact America’s
    ability to project force and influence anywhere in the world.



    If large fiscal deficits continue they will eventually
    jeopardize the dollar as the international currency.  Much of international trade is denominated in
    dollars.  This is a source of America’s
    global influence.


    Energy policy. 
    Importing crude oil and natural gas finances, directly and indirectly, America’s
    actual and potential enemies.  In the
    past, oil exports supported corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Libya
    and Iraq.  Oil exports benefit Russia,
    Iran and Venezuela.  Oil revenues help finance Muslim terrorist
    groups. Because of the dramatic increase in domestic production of oil, the U.S. now imports virtual no oil from the Middle East. It is ironic that the United States became militarily engaged in the Middle East just as we no longer needed oil from that region.


    Trade Deficit. 
    The U.S.
    continues to run a large trade and current account deficit.  The reasons are complicated although net
    energy imports are a part of it. 
    We can run this trade deficit as long as foreign holders of dollars are
    willing to invest in and lend to the United
    States. In the long run, this could have
    serious economic consequences.  Changes
    in domestic energy and economic policies could reduce the trade deficit and
    finance more of it from domestic savings. 
      


    Drug policy.  Current
    domestic drug policy creates huge profits for drug gangs around the world.  Profits from the drug trade help to finance
    terrorist groups and the states that support them.  Drug gangs destabilize Latin American and
    Asian governments and divert resources needed for economic development.



    An important part of American influence in the world is foreign
    perception of America
    as an example to be emulated.  America
    represents both a set of political and social ideals, and a related model to
    achieve economic growth and opportunity.  American influence is jeopardized if the rest
    of the world sees a society with increasing concentration of wealth and income,
    less social mobility, low economic growth, and a political system that appears
    to be intolerant, lacks compassion for the poor, and seems incapable of solving
    domestic problems.



    Lack of support for
    democratic, liberal groups in authoritarian states.



    The United States
    continued to support authoritarian regimes even after the fall of the Soviet
    Union.  There was no
    long-run policy to support democratic groups in authoritarian states after 1991
    or even after 2001.  Potential democratic
    opposition in these states continued to be outlawed, weakened or
    destroyed.  In many countries, the only
    organized opposition was religious fundamentalist groups. Egypt
    is the latest example.



    The United States
    should concentrate on supporting organizations and individuals who organize and
    expand the civil society of countries. 
    The point is that a democratic state can only survive and prosper if it
    has a social, economic and ideological foundation.



    The U.S.
    should support democratic groups in the same way we supported Solidarity in Poland.
    The American people have a role to play by contributing to NGOs that can affect
    change through supporting and advising civic organizations in other countries.



    One area of opportunity where the U.S.
    and Americans should support democratic groups and civil organizations is sub-Saharan
    Africa. This is important since after 2050 all of the world’s population growth will occur in sub-Saharan Africa.



    Part of any strategy is to play for the long run.  It was naïve to expect that Russia
    would overnight transform from a Communist to an American-style democratic
    society, or that long term Russian strategic interests would somehow disappear.  It is possible that Islamic
    fundamentalist political parties will dominate politics in many Islamic states
    in the foreseeable future.  But, as in Iran,
    they will create an internal opposition. 
    They can not keep out information, ideas and images from other
    societies.  For the U.S.,
    giving the opposition moral and material support should be a vital part of a
    long-run strategy.



    Lack of knowledgeable
    leadership in the
    United States.



    The quality of leadership counts.  For a superpower, the ignorance and lack of
    foreign policy experience of every president and presidential candidate after George
    Bush is appalling.  It is ironic that
    almost all of the domestic and foreign policies of George Bush were reversed or
    ignored by his son when he became president.  



    The American people should think about electing national
    leaders who know something about the rest of the world.  The recent presidential debates were
    embarrassing.  Congressional leaders are
    even worse. 


    Questions



    What are America’s
    strategic objectives?


    How are they being met by using overwhelming military force?


    What are
    the limits to our military superiority in a world of “asymmetric warfare,” non-state terrorist groups, and Internet-based propaganda?

                What are
    the tactical alternatives?



    Can we continue to spend $1 trillion a year on national
    security while running large budget and trade deficits?



    Cautionary Tales



    Historical
    analogies must be used with extreme care but they can be suggestive cautionary examples.  I wish that America’s
    political leaders had read Thucydides, especially his detailed analysis of Athens’
    large expedition to subdue Syracuse,
    before committing substantial American military forces to Vietnam. Or how come the most powerful military country of its day could not defeat American rebels. 



    The examples of the imperial democracy of Athens
    and the Roman republic might be relevant to the U.S.
    after the collapse of the Soviet empire. After defeating serious threats from rival powers (Persia
    and Carthage, respectively), both
    city-states rapidly expanded power and influence.  Both became the dominant powers in their main theaters of operation (Greece for Athens and the Mediterranean for Rome). Athenian and Roman political institutions could not adjust to remaining democratic and managing an empire.  Thucydides gives Pericles,
    the architect of imperial Athens, a
    speech justifying Athens’ foreign
    policies that sounds eerily like the “American exceptionalism” speeches of the
    last 20 years. In both cases, foreign power and imperial policies put severe strains on
    domestic politics and society. Athenian democracy was destroyed by a war of attrition with Sparta and then both were conquered first by the Macedonians and then the Romans. The Roman republic expanded rapidly in the last 100 years of the republic but collapsed from internal pressure to become the Roman empire.



    Conclusion



    All of this suggests that there are less expensive
    alternatives than relying primarily on military superiority – U.S.
    image, different domestic policies, changing security and economic alliances, support for foreign civil society
    organizations, becoming more economically
    competitive in the global economy, strategic vision and better leadership.  Since it is possible that military and national
    security spending will decrease sometime in the future because of fiscal constraints, it is time to
    concentrate on alternatives.