SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 6 Nov 2011 15:12:19 -0800
Reply-To:
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
From:
"James C.W. Ahiakpor" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (178 lines)
Quite an interesting piece, except for three fundamental flaws, I 
contend.  Backhouse and  Bateman claim:
> It took extensive government action to prevent another Great Depression
This is an unproven assertion.  At least in the U.S. the government 
action, starting in fall 2008 with Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, 
was to commandeer huge funds from the Treasury to bailout some favored 
investment banks.  Then several large banks were pressured into 
receiving billions, allegedly, to stave off the contraction "credit" in 
the economy.  And then, under Barrack Obama, the spending of billions on 
various so-called stimulus programs to "jump-start" the economy, founded 
upon the myth of the Keynesian expenditure multiplier.  But how can such 
diversions of funds from the public by the government be described as 
actions that prevented another Great Depression?  What would the funds 
have been used for if not spent by the government?

The credit contraction during the Great Depression resulted from the 
panic and contagion of bank failures, resulting in an $8 billion 
contraction of demand deposits between 1930 and 1933 and the failure of 
about 2 thousand banks each of those years.  The Federal Reserve System 
was prohibited under the Gold Standard from expanding its money creation 
quickly to meet the demands of the public for cash so as to have staved 
off the contraction of savings (credit) with banks.  With our changed 
financial system, particularly with the institution of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation and its Credit Union counterpart, how 
could the actions of the U.S. government, along with those of the 
Federal Reserve since the fall of 2008, be said to have been responsible 
for sparing us another Great Depression?  In fact, the case can be made 
that these interventions rather prevented what would have been a quick, 
natural correction that investment bankers as well as some irresponsible 
mortgage lenders would have faced in terms of bankruptcy.  Loanable 
credit that depends upon the public's savings would have continued to 
flow to credit worthy borrowers and the rest of the economy would have 
fared just well.

Backhouse and Bateman also claim that:
> the enormous rewards received by bankers at the heart of the meltdown
> have led many to ask whether unfettered capitalism produced an
> equitable distribution of wealth.
How could our distinguished commentators describe the U.S. economy 
before and after the financial crisis a model of "unfettered 
capitalism"?  Is it unfettered capitalism when government sponsored 
institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac promoted the securing of 
home mortgages by financially unworthy individuals?  Is it unfettered 
capitalism when the U.S. government would bailout investment banks and 
insurance companies from taking their losses from their miscalculations 
in the marketplace?

Instead of providing clarity of thought, hopefully, for the occupiers, 
Backhouse and Bateman also fed their confusion by failing to counter the 
question whether unfettered capitalism could produce "an equitable 
distribution of wealth."  First, what is "equitable distribution of 
wealth"?  Given that nature does not endow all of us with equal talents 
(or luck), how is it possible that we all could accumulate the same 
amount of wealth in the marketplace?  I find it quite unfortunate that 
Backhouse and Bateman did not explain that there is no evil individual 
out there inappropriately distributing the national income to us.  
Rather, we all engage in (productive) activities that yield us our 
incomes.  The statistical categorization of income types into size or 
functional distributions is not a meaningful way of recognizing the 
process through which some people get to be rich and others not so.  
Placards by some occupiers calling for the rich to be taxed, if if they 
don't already pay taxes, are informed by such statistical categorization 
and partly driven by envy.  It thus would have been more helpful had our 
distinguished colleagues explained the reality of the income earning 
process than to have given comfort to people already confused about the 
reality of an economic system.

Some of the occupiers also call for socialism or communism.  Our 
distinguished colleagues could have explained whether, from their 
knowledge of "comparative economic systems," the alternatives that the 
occupiers call for would promote a higher level of wealth creation or 
economic well-being, especially for the poor.  As David Ricardo long 
observed about the Poor Laws of England, including taxation to provide 
for the poor in poor houses, their effect was more to make the rich poor 
rather than to have made the poor rich.

James Ahiakpor
> The New York Times
> November 5, 2011
>
> Wanted: Worldly Philosophers
>
> By ROGER E. BACKHOUSE and BRADLEY W. BATEMAN
>
> IT’S become commonplace to criticize the “Occupy” movement for failing
> to offer an alternative vision. But the thousands of activists in the
> streets of New York and London aren’t the only ones lacking
> perspective: economists, to whom we might expect to turn for such
> vision, have long since given up thinking in terms of economic systems
> — and we are all the worse for it.
>
> This wasn’t always the case. Course lists from economics departments
> used to be filled with offerings in “comparative economic systems,”
> contrasting capitalism and socialism or comparing the French,
> Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon models of capitalism.
>
> Such courses arose in the context of the cold war, when the battle
> with the Soviet Union was about showing that our system was better
> than theirs. But with the demise of the Soviet Union, that motivation
> disappeared. Globalization, so it is claimed, has created a single
> system of capitalism driven by international competition (ignoring the
> very real differences between, say, China and the United States). We
> now have an economics profession that hardly ever discusses its
> fundamental subject, “capitalism.”
>
> Many economists say that what matters are questions like whether
> markets are competitive or monopolistic, or how monetary policy works.
> Using broad, ill-defined notions like capitalism invites ideological
> grandstanding and distracts from the hard technical problems.
>
> There is a lot in that argument. Economists do much better when they
> tackle small, well-defined problems. As John Maynard Keynes put it,
> economists should become more like dentists: modest people who look at
> a small part of the body but remove a lot of pain.
>
> However, there are also downsides to approaching economics as a
> dentist would: above all, the loss of any vision about what the
> economic system should look like. Even Keynes himself was driven by a
> powerful vision of capitalism. He believed it was the only system that
> could create prosperity, but it was also inherently unstable and so in
> need of constant reform. This vision caught the imagination of a
> generation that had experienced the Great Depression and World War II
> and helped drive policy for nearly half a century. He was, as the
> economist Robert Heilbroner claimed, a “worldly philosopher,”
> alongside such economic visionaries as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill
> and Karl Marx.
>
> In the 20th century, the main challenge to Keynes’s vision came from
> economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, who envisioned an
> ideal economy involving isolated individuals bargaining with one
> another in free markets. Government, they contended, usually messes
> things up. Overtaking a Keynesianism that many found inadequate to the
> task of tackling the stagflation of the 1970s, this vision fueled
> neoliberal and free-market conservative agendas of governments around
> the world.
>
> THAT vision has in turn been undermined by the current crisis. It took
> extensive government action to prevent another Great Depression, while
> the enormous rewards received by bankers at the heart of the meltdown
> have led many to ask whether unfettered capitalism produced an
> equitable distribution of wealth. We clearly need a new, alternative
> vision of capitalism. But thanks to decades of academic training in
> the “dentistry” approach to economics, today’s Keynes or Friedman is
> nowhere to be found.
>
> Another downside to the “dentistry” approach to economics is that
> important pieces of human experience can easily fall from sight. The
> government does not cut an abstract entity called “government
> spending” but numerous spending programs, from veterans’ benefits and
> homeland security to Medicare and Medicaid. To refuse to discuss ideas
> such as types of capitalism deprives us of language with which to
> think about these problems. It makes it easier to stop thinking about
> what the economic system is for and in whose interests it is working.
>
> Perhaps the protesters occupying Wall Street are not so misguided
> after all. The questions they raise — how do we deal with the local
> costs of global downturns? Is it fair that those who suffer the most
> from such downturns have their safety net cut, while those who
> generate the volatility are bailed out by the government? — are the
> same ones that a big-picture economic vision should address. If
> economists want to help create a better world, they first have to ask,
> and try to answer, the hard questions that can shape a new vision of
> capitalism’s potential.
>
> Roger E. Backhouse, a professor of economic history at the University
> of Birmingham, and Bradley W. Bateman, a professor of economics at
> Denison University, are the authors of “Capitalist Revolutionary: John
> Maynard Keynes.”
-- 
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542

(510) 885-3137 Work
(510) 885-4796 Fax (Not Private)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2