Globalization and Democracy

August 27, 2019

Amy Chua wrote World on Fire two decades ago, arguing that globalism and democracy would collide by bringing out ethnic and religious resentments around the globe. She identified animosities country by country that would explode when times got tough.

Many of us connected economic and democratic health. In hard times people look for scapegoats and blame each other. I’ve gotten jobs from and lost them to people of other races and genders. That’s normal and goes both ways but I did fine and don’t need to blame anyone. Many who don’t feel as well are looking for reasons.

Chua’s analysis isn’t destiny. Unions in Hawaii realized workers would do better if they were united. Hawaii developed a lovely multi-cultural society as a result. But Yugoslavia came apart in rough times. I fear the European Union and the United States can come apart if we engage in an orgy of blame.

Franklin Roosevelt focused on creating jobs in the 1930s and World War II finally pulled us out of the Great Depression. John Maynard Keynes explained that, when an economy is in the doldrums, spending and investment, by government, industry or consumers, pulls the economy out most effectively. Democrats have worked with his ideas ever since and the overall, national, economy has done well with Democrats in power, particularly when Democrats had a strong labor union base focused on workers.

But capitalism is built on creative destruction. Miners’ desires notwithstanding, other industries have been replacing coal for most of the twentieth century because coal dust and soot blanketed cities, killed plants and got into people’s lungs. The process accelerated recently as more sources of heat and power became available. It’s a benefit that capitalism allows shifts like that but also a problem that capitalism makes workers pay the greatest price for such change. Macroeconomic, Keynesian thinking helps but it doesn’t solve the harms to specific groups of workers who’ve lost out through no fault of their own. More is needed.

Republicans view the economy differently, particularly since Ronald Reagan became President, focusing on supply side economics which stresses putting more resources in the hands of companies, entrepreneurs or so-called job creators. Unfortunately, supply side economics leads Republicans to ignore what business does with money, hoping that enough will be used to create jobs at home. But business also uses their money to outsource to foreign countries, buy stock back, build monopolies and the like, which don’t help American workers. Business helps American workers when they find demand for what American workers produce. That’s not automatic.

So supply side economics leads Republicans away from strategies that would actually help workers and aggravates hard economic times that tend to push workers to fight among themselves for the available jobs. Under most conditions, supply-side economics is a smokescreen for policies that make things worse. Staying away from anything related to supply-side economics is much better for workers, brotherhood and labor unity. But the alternative Keynesian economics isn’t enough.  There is a gap with respect to finding work for areas which have lost their main industries.

To save our democracy, it’s crucial to get across what actually will help American workers and what won’t. That’s why the argument over government projects, like rebuilding infrastructure, is so important.


Our love affair with capitalism

February 25, 2019

Bernie reopened a national debate about capitalism and socialism. I think we need to understand that no economic system carried to the limit produces justice. We’ve been most successful using mixed systems to gain the advantages and smooth the problems created by both capitalism and socialism.

Actually socialism is hiding in plain sight: the post office, libraries, public schools, the water supply, fire and police protection, highways, roads and streets. We buy our capitalist cell phones on an internet system that government created for military and academic use before turning it over to private systems.

Capitalism has a fraught relationship with workers. It can and often does enlarge the total economy, the whole pie. But it doesn’t distribute that pie among the workers. It distributes the pie to those who make the decisions, and they keep what they can for themselves.

Workers and farmers have every right to be dissatisfied with the impact of capitalism on their lives. Capitalism makes farm prices unpredictable. I’m convinced the programs could be tweaked for the benefit of both the environment and of family farmers, but government programs nevertheless make prices for farm produce sufficiently predictable for farmers to stay in business.

The crumbling safety net leaves workers at the whim of other people’s investment decisions. The disruptions capitalism causes are well illustrated by the argument over the Amazon plant in Queens. There were several appropriate solutions, but the problems were clear – capitalism was preparing to push people out and their fate depended on government. Unemployment insurance and the social safety net were never enough or well attuned to the needs of families who work for others for their living. And the social safety net has been weakened considerably in the last decades along with weakening the legal position of unions. So, government has a job to do.

That doesn’t mean that we should abandon capitalism, but it does mean that capitalism is not the answer to every problem, and it’s not a sufficient answer to our economic problems. Nor are incentives for decision makers adequate answers. Capitalism is well described by the board game Monopoly. It’s so familiar, I wonder if you realized it was created to teach people what capitalism does. As its name implies, the effective object of capitalism is monopoly. Even though the holders of that monopoly change in real-world capitalism as we experience it, ordinary folks are constantly squeezed out. If our objective is the welfare of the people, capitalism is not a sufficient answer. We cannot and must not be ideological purists. Our country has been most successful when we have implemented a mixed system – capitalism as an essential disruptor, and public planning to smooth the impact for workers and communities.

There is a huge difference between saying that capitalism is valuable and the conclusion that socialism is useless, and vice versa. The truth is that both are useful, and we have to be ready, willing and able to reap the advantages of both without losing sight of their limitations.

It was my pleasure, years ago, to meet Robert A. Dahl, one of the intellectual giants of our era. He and Charles E. Lindblom teamed up to prepare a wonderful book, Politics, Economics and Welfare, to show us the different advantages of public and private action. Those of you who frequently listen to my commentary know that I often try to break the ideological mindset that only private action solves problems.

So, I’m looking for candidates this year whose answers are not ideological knee jerks for one system or the other, but who are pragmatically open to the best solutions from whatever source. Bernie is certainly right that some socialist solutions are necessary and important. Some candidates are staying clear of the word but nevertheless get the point. Any candidate who doesn’t get that point deserves a reeducation at public expense beginning with kindergarten where they might finally learn to share.

—  This commentary is scheduled for broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, February 26, 2019.

 

 


%d bloggers like this: