Tag Archives: economic

Elizabeth Warren on the Persistent Wage Gap: "That Has to Stop"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Confronting new research showing that women continue to earn far less than men for the same work, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called on Congress to pass legislation that would allow women to ask for male colleagues’ salary information without fear of being fired.

The liberal first-term senator spoke at an event on Capitol Hill unveiling a new report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a progressive think tank, that highlighted the persistent wage gap between men and women. The report found that women are still paid about 20 percent less than men, and that the small decrease in that gap has occurred largely due to stagnant wages for men, not significant gains by women.

“Over the last several decades women have entered the workforce in record numbers and made great strides in educational attainment,” begins the report, written by EPI’s Alyssa Davis and Elise Gould. “Nevertheless, when compared with men, women are still paid less, are more likely to hold low-wage jobs, and are more likely to live in poverty.”

Warren broadly endorsed the group’s recommended policy solutions, including efforts to raise the minimum wage, increase pay transparency, and codify equal pay into the law. “What really chaps me about this one is that we have had a real fight on our hands to try to get through Barbara Mikulski’s Paycheck Fairness Act,” Warren said, referring to a bill introduced by the Maryland Democrat that would make it illegal for companies to pay men and women different amounts for the same work and would allow employees to share wages without fear of retaliation. “And the importance of the Paycheck Fairness Act is—a lot of people say that ‘I thought equal pay for equal work was already the law’—what they don’t realize is that half of all women in America work in jobs where they can get fired, just for asking how much the guy down the hall was getting paid for working the same job. That has to stop.”

Despite being more likely than men to graduate from college, women still earn less than their male counterparts. The EPI report also highlighted the broader stagnation in wages in recent decades that has affected men and women, and the need for salaries to increase across the board. The wage gap has closed a bit over the years, but EPI’s research found that almost half of that decrease has occurred because men’s wages have failed to keep pace with economic growth, allowing women to catch up slightly.

“In the context of both male and female median wage growth that lags far behind economy-wide productivity,” the report says, “reductions in the gender wage gap driven by stagnant or falling male wages cannot truly be considered progress.” If the wage gap had been eliminated by 1979 and pay had kept up with increases in productivity, the hourly wage would be more than 70 percent higher for the median woman right now, EPI found.

In terms of hourly pay, the median woman makes 82.9 percent as much as the median man, according to EPI. Women earn less than their male equivalents across education levels and job categories.

Things are particularly bad for women of color, with the median Hispanic woman earning just 58.9 percent and the median black woman pulling down 65.1 percent of the median white man’s wage.

“The one thing that always gets me is that in 2015, I still have to get out and say that we believe in equal pay for equal work,” Warren said. “It always gets a nice round of applause…but you really want to say holy guacamole, we can’t get this thing done?”

EPI offers a broad collection of ideas for fixing the problem, including a host of familiar liberal policies such as passing laws that would make it easier to unionize and instituting paid family leave. The report also points to gender discrimination issues that aren’t easily solved through simple public policy tweaks, such as the fact that “women are disproportionately steered toward careers or even college majors that provide a lower wage payoff.”

EPI urges companies to reveal existing pay gaps publicly. It also suggests that raising the minimum wage would help women. If the federal minimum wage were bumped up to $12 an hour from $7.25, 56 percent of the workers who would see pay gains would be women, according to the report. The benefits for leveling the pay gap would be even greater if the tipped minimum wage were increased. Two-thirds of workers who make the current minimum wage for people who also earn tips—a scant $2.13 per hour—are women.

Source: 

Elizabeth Warren on the Persistent Wage Gap: "That Has to Stop"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Elizabeth Warren on the Persistent Wage Gap: "That Has to Stop"

Whose Tax Plan Is Best For Millionaires?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

So here’s where we stand. Marco Rubio has a tax plan with a top rate of 35 percent that promises to boost our economic growth rate to 3.5 percent per year. Jeb Bush then came out with his plan, which has a top rate of 28 percent and a growth rate of 4 percent per year. Then Donald Trump announced his plan, which has a top rate of 25 percent and a growth rate of 6 percent per year.

Who’s next? Carly? I advise her to announce a plan that has a top rate of 20 percent and promises growth of 8 percent per year. Ridiculous? Sure, but who’s going to call her on it? I mean, what’s Bush going to do? Get into an argument about whose supply-side growth assumptions are the most out of touch with reality?

Besides, she has to compete with Ben Carson, who doesn’t have an official tax plan but has vaguely said he likes the idea of a flat 10 percent tax based on the Biblical practice of tithing—though he’s been a little wobbly on whether his tax rate would really be exactly 10 percent. I guess even God can be improved on.

In case you’re curious, here are the top tax rates on the rich from each of the leading candidates. The most dynamic defenders of free enterprise are at the top, while the losers are at the bottom:

Carson: 10-15 percent
Paul: 14.5 percent
Huckabee: ~17 percent (23 percent FairTax that eliminates the payroll tax)
Trump: 25 percent
Bush: 28 percent
Christie: 28 percent
Rubio: 35 percent
Fiorina: ?
Cruz: ?

Jump to original:  

Whose Tax Plan Is Best For Millionaires?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whose Tax Plan Is Best For Millionaires?

The Conservative Tax Borg Has Finally Absorbed Donald Trump

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The New York Times reports that Republican leaders are alarmed at one particular aspect of Donald Trump’s popularity:

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on American companies that put their factories in other countries. He has threatened to increase taxes on the compensation of hedge fund managers. And he has vowed to change laws that allow American companies to benefit from cheaper tax rates by using mergers to base their operations outside the United States.

Alarmed that those ideas might catch on with some of Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals — as his immigration policies have — the Club for Growth, an anti-tax think tank, is pulling together a team of economists to scrutinize his proposals and calculate the economic impact if he is elected.

First things first: Trump and the Club for Growth have been feuding ever since Trump entered the race. The Club says it’s because Trump had previously supported universal health care and a one-time tax on individuals worth more than $10 million. Trump says it’s because the Club tried to shake him down for a $1 million donation and he refused to give it to them. The truth is—oh, who cares what the truth is? It’s just another Trump feud.

Anyway, Trump repudiated his wealth tax idea a long time ago, but he has supported (a) a progressive income tax, (b) closing loopholes for hedge fund managers, (c) tariffs on companies that move factories to Mexico, and (d) corporate inversions. But wait! In his interview with Sarah Palin, Trump inched closer to Republican orthodoxy on taxes:

We have to simplify our tax code. You have hedge fund guys that are paying virtually no tax and they’re making a fortune….Now you can go to a fair tax or a flat tax, but the easiest way and the quickest way, at least on a temporary basis, is simplification of the code: get rid of deductions, reduce taxes.

OK. So Trump definitely wants to eliminate the carried-interest loophole that allows hedge fund managers to pay very little in federal income tax. But he’s no longer opposed to a flat tax. It’s just that on a “temporary” basis he wants to broaden the base and reduce rates. This is as orthodox as it gets.

As for the tariffs on companies that move to Mexico, that’s just bluster not to be taken seriously. And reining in corporate inversions is a pretty bipartisan goal. It would presumably be part of a corporate tax overhaul that would end up being revenue neutral.

On taxes, then, Trump has all but caved in. The only serious part of his schtick that’s no longer garden-variety Republican dogma is his desire to close the carried-interest loophole. And even this is small potatoes: it would raise one or two billion dollars per year, which could easily be offset by a tiny tax cut somewhere else. There’s really nothing left for even Grover Norquist to dislike.

So no worries! Trump is becoming fully absorbed by the Republican borg on taxes. Aside from the Mexico stuff, which is just campaign trail bombast, there’s nothing left that would raise net taxes or offend conservative sensibilities in any way. Whew.

Visit source:

The Conservative Tax Borg Has Finally Absorbed Donald Trump

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Conservative Tax Borg Has Finally Absorbed Donald Trump

Iran Deal: As Good as We Could Have Gotten Unless We Were Willing to Threaten Immediate War

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

One of the big criticisms of President Obama’s nuclear deal is that he could have done better. In this case, Donald Trump really does speak for the entire GOP when he says that Obama’s team were all terrible negotiators who were too desperate for a deal and got suckered by shrewd Iranian horsetraders.

Is this true? Could we have gotten a substantially better deal if we had tightened the screws more? Gary Samore is the former president of United Against Nuclear Iran—”former” because he stepped down after he examined the deal and decided it was pretty good after all. Samore has decades of experience with Iran’s nuclear program and is well respected in the arms control community. So does he think we could have gotten a better deal?

Max Fisher: Could we have gotten a better deal?

Gary Samore: It’s very hard for me to answer that question. Unless you’re actually sitting in the room, doing the back-and-forth, it’s very, very difficult to say with any confidence that we could get a substantially better deal. When I say substantially better, I’m talking about much more dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment program, unlimited duration or a longer duration, and more robust challenge inspections of undeclared facilities.

I’m not talking about — I mean, the difference between 6,000 centrifuges and 5,000 centrifuges is trivial. Yes, you could probably get slightly different terms. We could have allowed them to keep a larger amount of low-enriched uranium, in exchange for having fewer centrifuges. There are all of these trade-offs embedded in the deal. But I don’t consider these kinds of details significantly better.

Max Fisher: It sounds like what you’re talking about, in terms of any different deal we could’ve gotten, is more about pushing around the numbers than getting a deal that looks fundamentally different.

Gary Samore: With the leverage that we have — which is economic sanctions and political pressure — I don’t think we can achieve a dismantlement of their program, unlimited duration, “anytime, anywhere” inspections. I just don’t think those are possible under current circumstances. Their economic situation would have to be much more dire, or we would have to be willing to use a military ultimatum to get those kinds of concessions from Iran.

Bottom line: Samore started out skeptical, but when he saw the actual text of the deal he was surprised at how good it was. Most importantly, he doubts that a substantially better deal would have been possible unless we had issued a military ultimatum.

So there’s something here for everyone. For people like me, it’s nice to hear that an expert came around when he took the time to look seriously at the deal’s terms. But Samore also concedes that we might have done better if we had credibly threatened to bomb Iran—which is precisely what a lot of conservatives think we should have done.

This is, perhaps, the fundamental dividing line. If you think we should have set a date certain for the missiles to fly unless we got what we wanted, then the deal was a lousy one. We could have done better. If you think—as I do—that this is insane, then the deal looks pretty good. Opinions about the final agreement have less to do with the precise terms of the deal than it does with your willingness to threaten immediate war to get what you want.

See the original post – 

Iran Deal: As Good as We Could Have Gotten Unless We Were Willing to Threaten Immediate War

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran Deal: As Good as We Could Have Gotten Unless We Were Willing to Threaten Immediate War

The Brownback Crash Continues in Kansas

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Menzie Chinn updates us today on how things are going in Sam Brownback’s Kansas. Answer: not so good. The chart on the right compares Kansas to the rest of the country using coincident indexes, an aggregate measure of economic performance tracked monthly by the Philadelphia Fed. It consists of the following four measures:

Nonfarm payroll employment
Average hours worked in manufacturing
Unemployment rate
Wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index

The index is set to 100 at the beginning of 2011, when Gov. Brownback took office. Brownback instituted an aggressive program of tax cuts and budget reductions, promising that this supply-side intervention would supercharge the state’s economy. But the reality has been rather different. Kansas has underperformed the US economy ever since Brownback was elected.

Why is that? Is the Fed using the wrong employment data? Chinn says no: “The decline shows up regardless of whether employment is measured using the establishment or household surveys.” Is it the weather? “Drought does not seem to be an explanation to me.” How about the poor performance of the aircraft industry? “Evidence from employment data is not supportive of this thesis.”

So what is it? “I would argue much of the downturn especially post January 2013 is self-inflicted, due to the fiscal policies implemented.” Surprise! I wonder if Kansans will ever figure this out?

Continued here: 

The Brownback Crash Continues in Kansas

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Brownback Crash Continues in Kansas

Hillary Clinton’s Big Economic Speech Abridged to 500 Words

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hillary Clinton gave her big economic speech today. As is my wont, I plowed through the transcript and excerpted only those parts that are actual policy proposals. This is sometimes a judgment call, but I think I got most of them. I didn’t include any vague prescriptions that she promised to explain in detail in later speeches.

By my count, Hillary’s laundry list includes 26 specific proposals, some with more detail than others. Not bad, even for a Clinton. So for those of you who aren’t interested in the blah blah blah, and just want the meat, here’s the Reader’s Digest version of the speech, condensed to about two minutes of reading time.

Let me begin with strong growth.

….Empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax relief and simplification…. business tax reform to spur investment in America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas….comprehensive immigration reform….infrastructure bank that can channel more public and private funds, channel those funds to finance world-class airports, railways, roads, bridges and ports….greater investments in cleaner, renewable energy right now.

….Fund the scientific and medical research that spawns innovative companies and creates entire new industries….breaking down barriers so more Americans participate more fully in the workforce — especially women….family-friendly policies….fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth.

….Beyond strong growth, we also need fair growth.

….We have to raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama’s new rules on overtime….crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages….defending and enhancing Social Security….encourage companies to share profits with their employees….reforming our tax code….Buffett Rule….closing the carried interest loophole….the decline of unions may be responsible for a third of the increase of inequality among men….we have to get serious about supporting workers.

….Every 4-year old in America should have access to high-quality preschool in the next ten years….80% of your brain is physically formed by age of three….intervention to help those often-stressed out young moms understand more about what they can do and avoid the difficulties that stand in the way of their being able to get their child off to the best start….reviving the New Markets Tax Credit and Empowerment Zones to create greater incentives to invest in poor and remote areas.

….The third key driver of income alongside strong growth and fair growth must be long-term growth.

….A new $1,500 apprenticeship tax credit….reform capital gains taxes to reward longer-term investments that create jobs more than just quick trades….Make sure stock buybacks aren’t being used only for an immediate boost in share prices….Empowering outside investors who want to build companies but discouraging “cut and run” shareholders who act more like old-school corporate raiders.

….Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called “shadow banking” system….I will appoint and empower regulators who understand that Too Big To Fail is still too big a problem….ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee….prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other criminal wrongdoing….when the government recovers money from corporations or individuals for harming the public, it should go into a separate trust fund to benefit the public.

And the obligatory paean to bipartisanship and comity:

….You know passing legislation is not the only way to drive progress. As President, I’ll use the power to convene, connect, and collaborate to build partnerships that actually get things done. Because above all, we have to break out of the poisonous partisan gridlock and focus on the long-term needs of our country.

More:

Hillary Clinton’s Big Economic Speech Abridged to 500 Words

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Big Economic Speech Abridged to 500 Words

Alexis Tsipras’ Secret Plan for Bailing Out Greece Has Been Brilliant

Mother Jones

Some anonymous drone at Free Exchange notes the damage done by the Greek decision to call a referendum on the European austerity proposals:

A lamentable feature of the Greek crisis of the past few months is the extent to which it has restoked national antipathies, on the part of both the Greeks and the Germans….But it is not just political damage that the referendum has done to Greece’s cause. The decision to call it and the extraordinary uncertainty that generated at home as well as abroad inflicted a body blow to the economy by causing the banks to be closed now for two weeks as the ECB capped the emergency central-bank lending that was allowing cash to be withdrawn by anxious Greeks fearing a return to the drachma that would slash the value of their deposits. As a result Greece now needs more money and over a longer period — €53.5 billion ($60 billion) until 2018.

Such is the bad blood on both sides, particularly the Greeks and the Germans, that there is still scepticism about whether they can come together at this latest eleventh hour.

Hmmm. Here’s a Slatepitchy suggestion. Maybe it’s all going according to plan. Consider this. It’s late June and prime minister Alexis Tsipras is trying to negotiate an agreement with the Europeans. It doesn’t go well, but he knows he has no choice but to swallow hard and accept their terms. As galling as it is, it’s the only way to save Greece. But he knows that if he simply signs off on the agreement, his party will revolt and parliament will reject it. So he comes up with a cunning plan.

The plan is this: piss off the Germans beyond the bounds of reason. Step 1: denounce the European proposal and call a referendum. Step 2: Go home and campaign loudly for a No vote on the proposal. Step 3: The Germans, now so angry they’re practically shaking with rage, press the ECB to cut off Greek banks, causing economic chaos. Step 4: Tsipras wins the referendum, thus getting the backing of his people. Step 5: Tsipras cools his heels for a day or two to let the economic chaos really sink in. Step 6: Tsipras heads to Brussels. After making everyone wait a few more days just to show that he can’t be pushed around, he tables an austerity plan that essentially caves in completely to the European proposal that he knew he’d have to accept eventually. Step 7: Tsipras returns home to Athens, where economic chaos has become so severe that no one cares anymore what’s in the damn proposal he just agreed to. They just want the banks to open and the local pharmacies to have stocks of insulin. Step 8: He signs the proposal. Step 9: The ECB opens the spigots, life gets back to normal, and Tsipras is a hero.

Not likely, you say? Tsipras isn’t that smart? Probably so. Still, it’s quite likely that Tsipras isn’t as stupid as some people are making out. He knew perfectly well that defaulting would lead to economic chaos and an exit from the euro, but he also knew that Greeks didn’t really believe this in their guts. They needed a demonstration. So he gave them one. If his goal all along wasn’t Grexit, but (a) an agreement with Europe that (b) would be accepted by the Greek population, he did a pretty good job.

Very clever, Mr. Tsipras!

Original source:

Alexis Tsipras’ Secret Plan for Bailing Out Greece Has Been Brilliant

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Alexis Tsipras’ Secret Plan for Bailing Out Greece Has Been Brilliant

Greece’s Big Fat No

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It appears that the Greek referendum is headed toward a landslide No vote. With about half of the votes counted as I write this, the No vote is very strongly in the lead and Greece’s interior ministry has released an official projection showing the No side winning 61 percent of the vote.

There are a couple of takeaways from this. First, I obviously don’t know squat about the Greek temperament. Let’s see now. What exactly is it that I said a few days ago? Oh yes, here it is:

In the end, the Greek public will be unwilling to back Tsipras in Sunday’s referendum and will vote to accept the European deal as is. The potential catastrophe of default and leaving the euro is just too scary for most of them to contemplate….So that’s my prediction. Unless Tsipras caves completely beforehand, the referendum will be held on Sunday and Greeks will vote to stay in the euro and accept Germany’s terms. It will basically be an unconditional surrender.

In technical terms, that was totally fucking wrong. Instead of caving in, the Greeks told Europe to take a hike. They refused to accept the austerity plan put in front of them and instead voted to support prime minister Alexis Tsipris’s effort to demand better terms. In general, that means they want Europe to (a) offer debt relief, (b) permit the Greek government to pass a higher budget supported by higher taxes; and (c) go a little easier on pension cuts.

The second takeaway is….oh forget it. Why listen to me anymore after this predictive debacle? Anyway, I don’t think anyone even knows what’s next now. Tsipris obviously has a vote of confidence and will stay in power. Angela Merkel and the rest of the Troika will have to decide whether to make a few concessions or simply refuse and let Greece twist in the wind. I honestly have no idea what they’ll choose. And the ECB will have to decide whether to keep Greece’s banks on life support for a while longer.

Stay tuned. It’s going to be a fascinating few weeks for those of us who don’t actually live in Greece and have to personally face the possibility of economic catastrophe.

Original link – 

Greece’s Big Fat No

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Greece’s Big Fat No

Jeb Bush Has Announced the Perfect Republican Economic Plan

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Rand Paul says his secret to success is that his tax cut plan will supercharge economic growth. Jeb Bush says his secret to success is that merely by being president he will supercharge economic growth.

I guess I have to give this round to Paul. He at least tried to come up with some math salad to justify his belief that a Rand Paul presidency will bring about economic nirvana. Bush simply declared ex cathedra that he’d make the economy grow at an astonishing 4 percent per year. Why? “It’s a nice round number. It’s double the growth that we are growing at. It’s not just an aspiration. It’s doable.”

Um, OK. He gets points for copping to a sort of amiable idiocy, I suppose. But in case you’re interested, here’s economic growth since the Reagan administration:

Reagan managed 4 percent growth four times in eight years. George H. W. Bush managed it zero times. Bill Clinton did it five times in eight years. George W. Bush did it zero times. Barack Obama has (so far) done it zero times. And no president in history has averaged 4 percent growth over the course of his presidency. No one.1

If you want all the gory details, Matt Yglesias has much more here about just how unlikely this kind of growth is. But politically speaking, the details aren’t what’s interesting. What’s interesting is that Bush’s comment is an unusually clear peek behind the curtain, one that demonstrates how unseriously Republicans take the economy. It’s all just cotton candy for the gullible. Cut taxes on the rich and this will—somehow—supercharge the economy. Slash regulations and this will—somehow—unleash business activity and supercharge the economy. Now Bush has decided to dispense with even the mumbo jumbo explanations. He’s distilled the GOP economic message down to its essence: Elect me president and—merely because I’m a Republican and I say so—I’ll supercharge the economy.

And there’s more. If you assume the economy is going to skyrocket, there’s no need to address niggling concerns about spending or budget deficits. There will be money for everything! And when it doesn’t happen? Oops. Sorry. Next time we’ll get serious for sure. Honest.

1OK, OK, it’s true that FDR did it. How? By starting at the bottom of the worst depression in history and ending with the biggest wartime boom in history. This basically makes the case for just how unlikely this is to ever happen again.

Read More – 

Jeb Bush Has Announced the Perfect Republican Economic Plan

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jeb Bush Has Announced the Perfect Republican Economic Plan

How to Really Think About Major Trade Deals Like the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

While Kevin Drum is focused on getting better, we’ve invited some of the remarkable writers and thinkers who have traded links and ideas with him from Blogosphere 1.0 to this day to contribute posts and keep the conversation going. Today we’re honored to present a post from Matt Yglesias, currently the executive editor of Vox.

There is almost nothing in the whole wide world that economists like better than recounting David Ricardo’s basic case for free trade. And this is sort of understandable. It’s a really cool idea!

If you don’t believe me, check out Paul Krugman’s 1995 essay on the subject. But for the dime store version, what Ricardo showed—and what economists have been enthusing about ever since—is that Country A benefits (in the sense of what’s nowadays known as Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency) from opening up its domestic producers to competition from imports from Country B, even if Country B is better at producing everything.

It’s a cool result.

But oftentimes enthusiasm for this result seems to lead Ph.D. economists into all kinds of wild irrelevancies like former Council of Economic Advisors Chair Greg Mankiw’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Mankiw focuses on Adam Smith rather than Ricardo, but in both cases the point is the same—18th-century economists showed that the efficiency of an economy can be improved by opening itself up to imports from abroad.

This is very true, but it also tells us very little about the merits of a 21st-century trade agreement.

One huge flaw is that while classical economics has a fair amount to tell us about the wealth of nations, it doesn’t say much at all about the wealth of the individual people inside the nations. A trade deal that enriches Americans who own lots of shares of stock and Central Americans who own lots of plantation land could easily pass the (low) economic bar of efficiency while still making most people worse off.

But an even bigger problem is that many of the biggest barriers to international trade don’t come conveniently labeled as barriers to international trade.

Take the Jones Act here in the United States, which says that if you want to ship goods on a boat from one American port to another American port, you need to do so on boats constructed in the United States and owned by US citizens, staffed by US citizens and legal permanent residents, and crewed by US citizens and US permanent residents. Common sense says that this is protectionism for American ship owners, shipyards, and ship crews.

But the actual text of the Jones Act says otherwise. What the 1920 law says is that a merchant marine “sufficient to carry the waterborne domestic commerce…of the United States” is “necessary for the national defense.” In other words, we dare not let foreign-owned ships outcompete domestic ones as a matter of national security.

Conversely, if you look at Japan’s legendarily protected domestic automobile market you will find essentially nothing in the way of formal barriers to foreign trade. Tariffs on imported automobiles, for example, are currently at zero. The way it works, according to the American Auto Council, is that “Japan has used automotive technical regulations as a means to protect local markets by creating excessively difficult and costly regulatory and certification requirements, with little or no safety or emissions benefits.”

That these regulations are mere protectionism is overwhelming conventional wisdom in the United States. But of course, proponents of the Japanese status quo no more see it that way than do proponents of the Jones Act here at home. These are necessary regulations! This is the dilemma of the modern trade agreement.

Smith and Ricardo never imagined a world in which governments routinely regulated large classes of products to promote consumer safety, workers’ rights, environmental goals, or national security goals. But lurking behind every regulation is potentially a barrier to trade. What the US Food and Drug Administration sees as public health regulation of dangerous cheese bacteria looks like protectionism to French cheesemakers, and what European Union officials see as public health regulation of hormone-treated beef looks like protectionism to American ranchers.

Taken from: 

How to Really Think About Major Trade Deals Like the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Really Think About Major Trade Deals Like the Trans-Pacific Partnership