Who Wants to Know?

 Financial FAQs

“Fewer than a quarter of Americans (23%) currently rate the country’s economic conditions as excellent or good, while 36% say they are poor and about four-in-ten (41%) view conditions as “only fair,” PEW Research

PEWResearch

Why do so many Americans doubt the strength of the American economy that is the fastest growing in the developed world since the COVID-19 pandemic? It depends on their politial leanings, according to the latest PEW Research poll.

PEW Research has been measuring political attitudess for decades. As many as 81 percent of Republicans had positive views of the nation’s economy during Trump’s first presidency, whereas a higher percentage of Democrats were positive during President Biden’s term, per the PEW graph.

It is a condemnation of the lack of economic literacy among American voters, and I maintain largely a reflection of its lack in our educational system.

This is also a reflection of the fact that economic science is still in its infancy. In fact, Adam Smith, who wrote the first treatise on economic theory, The Wealth of Nations, was a Scottish Professor of Moral Philosophy who was the first to show that a successful economy was based on its citizenry guided by an invisible hand to make the right moral choices (honesty, good character).

And economies went awry when those in charge didn’t follow the rules of good character, which have always been autocratic rulers out to serve themselves rather than their citizens, such as in China and Russia. And why is that possible?

A large fraction of voters do suffer from economic illiteracy. Indeed, it is fair to say that an ample majority do not understand the basics of how markets work. They are especially confused about labor and international markets. Voters also have severe misconceptions about how government spends their tax dollars, and are extraordinarily pessimistic about long-run economic conditions,” says Professor Bryan Caplan of George Mason University, citing a recent Washington Post/ Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation/ Harvard University Survey Project.

Most voters lack even an elementary understanding of economics. When prices change, vague conspiracy theories - not supply-and-demand - are their default explanation, says Professor Caplan.

One survey item that captured the public's anti-market bias is the question asking why the price of gasoline rose back in 1996. Is the reason the "normal law of supply and demand," or is it instead "oil companies trying to increase profits"? An overwhelming majority of economists - 89% - point to supply and demand. An almost equally lopsided fraction of the public - 74% - say the opposite.

Why so much ignorance of financial markets and basic economic conditions that everyone should know to make accurate decisions about their financial future? An economic education was not a high priority for Americans during more prosperous times, a time of a growing middle class after the Great Depression and World War Two.

According to the Council for Economic Education’s latest biennial Survey of the States, a nonpartisan education organisation, just 28 states required K-12 students to take an economics course to graduate, until the COVID-19 pandemic and world-side economic shutdown.

But since the pandemic more than two-thirds of all states are now requiring personal finance classes for high school graduation.

The 2024 Survey found that 35 states now require students to take a course in personal finance to graduate. The new regulations in those dozen states will lead to over 10 million additional K–12 students – 21 percent of current students – gaining guaranteed access to this knowledge, the Survey notes.

The picture isn’t much better in higher education. Only 3.3 percent of colleges required students to take a basic economics course, according to a 2014 study by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, titled "What Will They Learn?"

ACTA looked at 1,098 colleges and universities. The organization found 3.3 percent require an economics class, 18.3 percent require a U.S. government or history class, and 37 percent make students take a literature course.

There is one additional reason for Americans’ economic illiteracy. It is the well-studied phenomena of herd behavior that was called irrational exuberance by former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in an earlier decade.

Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller attributed it to a mental laziness that caused the housing bubble. People tend to listen to hearsay and word of mouth rather than rely on their own judgements to make financial decisions.

“It was, and is, about how errors of human judgment can infect even the smartest people, thanks to overconfidence, lack of attention to details, and excessive trust in the judgments of others, stemming from a failure to understand that others are not making independent judgments but are themselves following still others—the blind leading the blind,” said Dr. Shiller.

It is a sorry picture of our economic illiteracy, and the reason so many citizens are easily fooled by leaders without the requisite character traits, such as good morals and character, that Adam Smith said were required to run a successful economy and government that is for all the people.

Harlan Green © 2024

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Enslavement of the Middle Class

Financial FAQs

It is becoming obvious that the American middle class (topic dujour among presidential candidates these days) has been enslaved by an ideology that only benefits the wealthiest among US. It is an ideology of austerity that has prevailed in the U.S. at least since the 1980s, and Paul Krugman says is putting Europe into its Second Great Depression.

It is really an economic ideology of the 18^th century first formulated by Adam Smith—of fewer government services and lower taxes that has made corporations all powerful with the greatest profits in their history, left American workers with little or no control over their livelihoods, and resulted in the greatest income inequality since the 1920s.

Such an insidious ideology has kept the poorest states poorer, caused declining investment in education (our seed corn for future entrepreneurs), is quickly degrading our public infrastructure, and even the ability to protect ourselves. President Obama’s State of the Economy report and latest speeches have made it obvious. The greatest income inequality since the 1920s is here to stay, unless there are major changes in economic policies.

That is why most Americans (at least the 90 percent) have become harried, 24/7 workers with little vacation time, poor health care options (in spite of Obamacare), too expensive educational opportunities, too few well-paying jobs, and little protection from the globalization that stronger labor laws would bring.

Those policies have been called supply-side economics, under the theory that giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest by reducing capital gains and maximum tax rates, while shrinking government investment and oversight, would induce the wealthiest to put their money into productive investments, thus creating more jobs.

But that never happened. When President Reagan cut the maximum income tax rate from 70 percent that prevailed in the 1970s to 50 percent, it and 2 recessions created the largest budget deficit of that era, which is why he instituted 11 tax hikes to bring the budget back into a semblance of balance. This was all catalogued by his budget director, David Stockmen in The Triumph of Politics.

Then we have GW Bush’s further tax cuts on both maximum income tax rates to 35 percent and capital gains to their lowest in modern history that so depleted tax revenues it created the largest budget deficits in history, and ultimately the Great Recession.

It’s no use sugar coating the truth any longer. Since the end of the Great Recession, the top 1 percent of income earners have garnered 96 percent of total income since 2009, after a brief dip. And Americans still have the greatest income inequality of the developed western world.

Why could such inequality be here to stay? In part because so much wealth has flowed to so few, and it is easy to buy influence in this country. The most obvious receivers of such largesse are the conservative members of Congress, mostly Republicans, who continue to block the economic reforms that would better the lives of those that live on Main Street.

Nobelist Paul Krugman said as much in his latest NYTimes Oped: “So what does it say about the current state of the G.O.P. that discussion of economic policy is now monopolized by people who have been wrong about everything, have learned nothing from the experience, and can’t even get their numbers straight?... Clearly, failure has only made them stronger, and now they are political kingmakers. Be very, very afraid.”

Graph: CEA Report

The White House just released their Council of Economic Advisors 2015 Report, chaired by Jason Furman. It said, “The second important factor influencing the dynamics of middle-class incomes is inequality. This, too, is a global issue. In the US, the top 1 percent has garnered a larger share of income than in any other G-7 country in each year since 1987 for which data are available, as shown in the above graph.”

It should be clear what must be done to remove the obstacles that hold back most Americans from a better life. Let us start by jettisoning the 18^th century myth which enslaves all economic classes, a myth that only holds us back in the 21st century. Indiscriminately lowering taxes while minimizing government services and oversight hasn’t improved the lives of anyone except the wealthiest among us.

Harlan Green © 2015

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

It’s Not About Obamacare!

Financial FAQs

We know the federal government’s shutdown isn’t really about Obamacare. We know this because Tea Party Republicans have been trying to shut down government since the 2010 election, as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and others have pointed out. The uncertainties around such a major new social program as Obamacare has become the issue they are using to shut it down.

It’s even in their campaign promises. "We're very excited," Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), one of their leaders, told the Washington Post after the shutdown. "It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it."

"President Obama can't wait to get Americans addicted to the crack cocaine of dependency on more government health care," she said. "All they want to do is buy love from people by giving them massive government subsidies."

Who are the Tea Partiers? The New York Times stated in a 2010 poll that the 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

So why shut down all of the federal government then? Many of its constituents live in those Red States with lower incomes that depend so much on government programs like social security, Medicare, and now the Affordable Care Act for insurance coverage. In fact, the 26 states who have rejected the Medicaid expansion for poorest Americans have about half of the population, but 60 percent of the uninsured, says the New York Times. These are the so-called ‘have-not’, mostly Republican-led states in the Midwest and south.

Wikipedia states the Tea Party is not a political party, but a movement named after the Boston Tea Party. “It is an American decentralized political movement that is primarily known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.”

This is the Adam Smith philosophy from his The Wealth of Nations, written in 1776, of all years. And that has been the credo of conservatives since then. The problem is that most of the national debt and budget deficit was caused by Republican administrations who espoused Adam Smith's philosophy of lower taxes without cutting government spending.

The resultant record income inequality that helped to cause the Great Recession has left the rich and powerful free to accumulate as much wealth as they can, but not pay for the services that enabled them to do so, as was so clearly said by Senator Elizabeth Warren in a famous campaign talk.

"You built a factory out there? Good for you," she says. "But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

"…you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

So it is really about a much earlier economic system I’ve called medieval economics in past columns, which had a very different social contract. It was the philosophy that protected the privileged who were thought to be divinely protected in Adam Smith’s day. The less privileged were to be protected by an “invisible hand” of enlightened self-interest. That is, it should be in the interest of the powerful to take good care of their constituents. But that hasn't happened with the Tea Partiers, at least, who don't want to finance programs that aid the under privileged.

This is also the core Tea Party philosophy that believes the U.S.Constitution protects those privileges. Indeed, during its formation, this country was governed by the privileged who wrote the Constitution—those albeit enlightened white males who owned land. And that is the medieval system the Tea Party wants to restore, whether they realize it or not.

Harlan Green © 2013

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarlanGreen

The Case for a More Sustainable Economics

Financial FAQs

Recent events have shown that financial markets are still very susceptible to crashes, and economies susceptible to serious recessions, such as the recent Great Recession. But does that have to be? The fault doesn’t only lie with the irrational exuberance of investors who believe that markets (and housing prices) only go up. Such financial gyrations also come from faulty economic thinking, thinking that hasn’t changed for more than 200 years.

Adam Smith, the founder of much of what is called classical economics, thought that an “invisible hand” (i.e., a free market) created maximum conditions for the production of goods and services—which suited the small market economies that existed in 1776, and provided a theoretical blueprint for the Industrial Revolution then sweeping Great Britain. His theories helped to solve the problems of mass production, but not how those goods should be distributed. And that is where the science of economics has fallen down.

In fact, most recessions result from overproduction, including the Great Depression. The current Great Recession resulted from an overproduction of housing, as the 2001 recession resulted from overexpansion of the dot-com sector. That is really the definition of an overheated economy. Some kind of inflationary asset bubble is created, which eventually causes prices to plunge (or crash), which leads to a downward spiral in production and jobs.

Only now are economists beginning to think about the consequences of mass production. They are beginning to look for a more sustainable model for economic growth, one that isn’t susceptible to such wide swings.

Economist John Maynard Keynes was the first modern economist to address this issue. He said in an essay entitled, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren (1930)” that, “assuming no important wars and no important increase in population, the economic problem may be solved, or be at least within sight of solution, within a hundred years. This means that the economic problem is not—if we look into the future—the permanent problem of the human race.”

We are 20 years away from that date, and yet how close to achieving his utopian prediction, when “…the economic problem, the struggle for subsistence, always has been higherto the primary, most pressing problem of the human race…”?

There is not much research to date on sustainable markets, meaning markets that leave some wealth for our grandchildren, as Keynes wished. The current Great Recession is an excellent example. It left a mountain of debt, due to a massive deregulation of the financial markets and the consequent massive overleveraging of debt.

Even the sustainability of social security and Medicare are in doubt, as well as the credibility of the U.S. Treasury’s ability to repay some $10 trillion in federal debt. We are not the most indebted of developed countries, as this map shows. But the near-failure of our financial system has highlighted the dangers of over-indebtedness.

There are other forms of sustainability beside responsible budgets that provide sustainable social safety nets, of course. There are sustainable production methods that don’t deplete non-renewable resources, and sustainable environmental practices that don’t emit toxic pollutants.

The most sustainable economic theory would still embrace an emphasis on increasing average household incomes, which has actually decreased since 2000 for those under 65 years of age. But that can only happen with an emphasis on job creation, which current economic policies and theories do not foster. In fact, household incomes have fallen back to 1998 levels, so severe has been this recession.

The main problem with the various job creation theories is their total disagreement on methods that create what is called aggregate demand, the engine for any economic growth. That is the demand for goods and services that must grow for producers to have the incentive to produce more, and so create new jobs.

So-called neo-classical (mostly conservative) economists still believe in Say’s Law, for example, that says if more ‘things’ are produced, it will create the demand, per se, which will in turn cause consumers and investors to want to buy/invest more. This is the faulty thinking that still underlies much of modern economics. It justified skewing tax breaks to producers and investors in 2001 while reducing government oversight, in the theory that with less restraints employers will automatically create new jobs.

But the main characteristic of a recession is that a surplus of things drives down prices, and so drives up unemployment, as we have said. This in turn reduces aggregate demand, which economists express as a formula:

where aggregate demand (Yd) is the sum of all personal consumption (C) + private investment (I) + government expenditures (G) + any net of exports over imports (X-M).

We know that during most recessions personal consumption, private investment, and exports tend to fall, so in order to create stable aggregate demand during such downturns government has to step up its spending. Only then will the economy be stimulated by putting enough money in the hands of consumers, who comprise 70 percent of economic activity.

This in turn means taking the focus off individual, self-interest, as a goal of economic development, and focusing on the economic self-sufficiency of families, communities and countries. By focusing on the welfare of the whole, economists can begin to focus on the welfare of future generations, as well as those of past and present generations.

Harlan Green © 2010