Most economies around the world have been in the doldrums since the Global Financial Crisis of 2007/8 and the Great Recession that followed. Unemployment in some European nations has been at levels not seen since the Great Depression. Although the situation is not as dire in all nations, economic activity remains well below potential virtually everywhere. The result is needless human suffering.
In a nutshell, the economy comes down to this: we have available labor time and natural resources with which we can produce some stuff and distribute it. Unemployment now means lost production now that can never be recovered in the future.
A diverse culture is best served by an economy that can cater to diverse needs and interests. In our societies, perspectives differ widely when it comes to (among other things) the following five areas:
1. Competition and cooperation. Some people enjoy competition in pursuit of external rewards. Others prefer cooperation and feeling a part of something bigger than themselves. Most enjoy both competition and cooperation, just in varying degrees.
2. Personal motivation. Some people would largely lose interest in productive activity if it were not for the potential of private profit or a high salary. Others prefer to work in a not-for-profit environment and are more or less unmotivated by material gain.
3. Attitudes on inequality. Some people want to have more than others. Some would prefer not to. Some care if others have more than them. Some don’t as long as everyone has enough and the inequality is not so extreme as to undermine democracy.
Often, in trying to get at the “essentials” of how a capitalist economy functions, we consider a simplified model of a closed economy without government. Through such models it is possible to make the argument that exploitation, instability, unemployment and/or demand deficiency (depending on the particular Marxian or Keynesian flavor of the model) are endogenous to a private market system in which production is for monetary profit. Not only is it then possible to hold that the problems are inherent to laissez-faire capitalism but also that their solution can only come from the “outside” – either through revolutionary overthrow of the system or reformist management by the state. In debate between the proponents of laissez-faire capitalism and its dissenters, the approach is useful and informative. Proponents of laissez-faire desire an economy in which the role of the state is minimized, and the simplified models take that line of thought to its logical conclusion and suggest it is untenable. However, it is also easy to lose sight of what is missed in abstracting from the state. A habit of thought tends to emerge in which the state is seen as peripheral to capitalism and perhaps even powerless to do much at all when faced with the supposed awesome might of private market forces and the realities of capitalist social relations of production. But the state is actually foundational to capitalism, and the current economic system would not exist, let alone function effectively, without it.
Critics frequently charge (no link found) that while we on the Left are prolific in identifying reasons things must change, our prowess in actually bringing about change is less impressive. I thought it might be of theoretical interest, or at least of idle curiosity, to reflect on the means of effecting change. Let’s sit ourselves down with a cup of coffee and conduct a thought experiment concerning what might be done. Dare we contemplate something more than change? Something as grandiose as social transformation? Yes, I say. Why not? This could prove to be an intriguing exercise indeed.
There has been discussion in the economic blogosphere recently, from a left perspective, about the merits or otherwise of employing an understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in debates over policy and efforts to transform the economic system. There is an interesting post, for example, by Dan at Pruning Shears (h/t Tom Hickey) suggesting that MMT might be a “dicey bet for liberals”. In reading this and similar arguments presented elsewhere, I find myself agreeing on some (though certainly not all) points, but differing in the conclusion to be drawn from them.
Regular readers will be aware that I would support either a basic income guarantee (BIG) or job guarantee (JG) as standalone programs, whichever happened to be on the policy agenda, but ideally would prefer a program that combined the positive elements of both into some form of ‘job or income guarantee‘. Much of my reasoning to date has been outlined in previous posts archived under the category Job & Income Guarantee. I won’t revisit those considerations in this post. The present focus is instead on which of the two programs — a BIG or JG — should be seen as primary.
Time for a music break. Proceed with caution if in the office or too seriously into economics to countenance such an outrageous waste of cyberspace. The economic content of what follows is arguably minimal. Arguably, it is not even arguable. As always with music breaks, your mileage may vary. It’s unavoidable. I’m sorry. And I feel your pain. Heteconomist has its own core set of musical influences, and it is virtually inevitable that these expose themselves from time to time. The good news is that it’s always possible to infuse the blog with new influences via the comments section. And, of course, if you choose not to click on the videos, no one will ever be the wiser. Perfect.
Sometimes supporters of a basic income guarantee (BIG) argue for the policy on the grounds that it would increase “incentives to work”. This conclusion follows from standard neoclassical labor-supply analysis. Irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the argument – and, if correct, it probably does have some utility as a negator of frequent neoliberal claims to the contrary – it is important to keep in mind obvious limitations of the argument and to go well beyond it. Two limitations, in particular, spring to mind.
I very much enjoyed this talk in Adelaide by Steven Hail (first hour) and Q&A session with Steven and Phil Lawn moderated by Anna Milhaylov (following half hour). The talk was organized by the Mayo Branch of the Australian Greens.