Tag Archives: Financial crisis

From an industrial renaissance to an economy of value

By Francisco Jaime Quesado – While having to endure the ongoing era of a global pandemic, we are facing the prospect of an effective industrial renaissance that can change the way our economy works

In the new global economy, in which industry is becoming more important, companies have a new challenge – to redefine its value chain and to integrate the existing global networks with new ideas, new solutions and new proposals of competence. This industrial renaissance will be a contract of trust in this new agenda of change and a new effective vision for the future as it should mobilize those that have a set of effective value creations in the economy.

A post-pandemic industrial renaissance is the point of contact between those that believe in the power of people to create new solutions to more complex problems that are arising in society and those that want innovation and creativity to be the platform for the creation of value in a globally competitive economy. This ‘renaissance’ is, in essence, the confirmation of a process of integration of people into society – an individual’s contribution must be a commitment to the organization of society and its main elements.

The next stage in the process of rebirth must apply to the most critical factors of competence and trust, which includes a focus on innovation and the sharing of positive dynamics. We need society to have a new challenge. Society must be able to be the real platform of a more entrepreneurial society that is centered on new areas of knowledge and sectors of value.

In a modern and active society, the keyword is ‘co-creation’, which is used to promote a dynamic and active creation process that involves each citizen in the next big challenge for society. more>

What Do Economists Mean When They Talk About “Capital Accumulation”?

In every other science, this inability to measure the key category of the theory would be devastating. But not in the science of economics.
By Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan – What do economists mean when they talk about “capital accumulation”? Surprisingly, the answer to this question is anything but clear, and it seems the most unclear in times of turmoil. Consider the “financial crisis” of the late 2000s. The very term already attests to the presumed nature and causes of the crisis, which most observers indeed believe originated in the financial sector and was amplified by pervasive financialization.

However, when theorists speak about a financial crisis, they don’t speak about it in isolation. They refer to finance not in and of itself, but in relation to the so-called real capital stock. The recent crisis, they argue, happened not because of finance as such, but due to a mismatch between financial and real capital. The world of finance, they complain, has deviated from and distorted the real world of accumulation.

According to the conventional script, this mismatch commonly appears as a “bubble”, a recurring disease that causes finance to inflate relative to reality. The bubble itself, much like cancer, develops stealthily. It is extremely hard to detect, and as long as it’s growing, nobody – save a few prophets of doom – seems able to see it. It is only after the market has crashed and the dust has settled that, suddenly, everybody knows it had been a bubble all along. Now, bubbles, like other deviations, distortions and mismatches, are born in sin. They begin with “the public” being too greedy and “policy makers” too lax; they continue with “irrational exuberance” that conjures up fictitious wealth out of thin air; and they end with a financial crisis, followed by recession, mounting losses and rising unemployment – a befitting punishment for those who believed they could trick Milton Friedman into giving them a free lunch.

This “mismatch thesis” – the notion of a reality distorted by finance – is broadly accepted. In 2009, The Economist of London accused its readers of confusing “financial assets with real ones”, singling out their confusion as the root cause of the brewing crisis (Figure 1). Real assets, or wealth, the magazine explained, consist of “goods and products we wish to consume” or of “things that give us the ability to produce more of what we want to consume”. Financial assets, by contrast, are not wealth; they are simply “claims on real wealth”. To confuse the inflation of the latter for the expansion of the former is the surest recipe for disaster. more>

Rapid Money Supply Growth Does Not Cause Inflation

Neither do rapid growth in government debt, declining interest rates, or rapid Increases in a central bank’s balance sheet
By Richard Vague – Monetarist theory, which came to dominate economic thinking in the 1980s and the decades that followed, holds that rapid money supply growth is the cause of inflation. The theory, however, fails an actual test of the available evidence. In our review of 47 countries, generally from 1960 forward, we found that more often than not high inflation does not follow rapid money supply growth, and in contrast to this, high inflation has occurred frequently when it has not been preceded by rapid money supply growth.

The purpose of this paper is to present these findings and solicit feedback on our data, methods, and conclusions.

To analyze the issue, we developed a database of 47 countries that together constitute 91 percent of global GDP and looked at each episode of rapid money supply growth to see if it was followed by high inflation. In the majority of cases, it was not. In fact, the opposite was true—a large percentage of the cases of high inflation were not preceded by high money supply growth. These 47 countries all rank within the top 70 largest economies as measured by GDP and include each of the top 20 countries. If a country was not included, it was because we could not get a complete enough set of historical data on that country.

There are several reasons to want to better understand the causes of inflation. Currently, central banks in Japan, Europe and elsewhere are trying to engender a moderately higher level of inflation in order to stave off the drift toward deflation and under the belief that it will add to job and economic growth. Also, both public and private debt have reached such high levels in ratio to GDP that some policymakers are beginning to reflect on potential paths to deleveraging, and inflation is one such path. Lastly, a number of countries are trying to moderate levels of inflation that are deemed too high. For these countries, too, a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of inflation is important. more>

Finance Is Not the Economy

An economy based increasingly on rent extraction by the few and debt buildup by the many is a feudal model
By Dirk Bezemer and Michael Hudson – Why have economies polarized so sharply since the 1980s, and especially since the 2008 crisis? How did we get so indebted without real wage and living standards rising, while cities, states, and entire nations are falling into default? Only when we answer these questions can we formulate policies to extract ourselves from the current debt crises. There is widespread sentiment that this crisis is fundamental, and that we cannot simply “go back to normal.” But deep confusion remains over the theoretical framework that should guide analysis of the post-bubble economy.

The last quarter century’s macro-monetary management, and the theory and ideology that underpinned it, was lauded by leading macroeconomists asserting that “The State of Macro[economics] is Good” (Blanchard 2008, 1). Oliver Blanchard, Ben Bernanke, Gordon Brown, and others credited their own monetary policies for the remarkably low inflation and stable growth of what they called the “Great Moderation” (Bernanke 2004), and proclaimed the “end of boom and bust,” as Gordon Brown did in 2007. But it was precisely this period from the mid-1980s to 2007 that saw the fastest and most corrosive inflation in real estate, stocks, and bonds since World War II.

Nearly all this asset-price inflation was debt-leveraged. Money and credit were not spent on tangible capital investment to produce goods and non-financial services, and did not raise wage levels. The traditional monetary tautology MV=PT, which excludes assets and their prices, is irrelevant to this process. Current cutting-edge macroeconomic models since the 1980s do not include credit, debt, or a financial sector (King 2012; Sbordone et al. 2010), and are equally unhelpful. They are the models of those who “did not see it coming” (Bezemer 2010, 676).

In this article, we present the building blocks for an alternative. This will be based on our scholarly work over the last few years, standing on the shoulders of such giants as John Stuart Mill, Joseph Schumpeter, and Hyman Minsky. more>

If we want more companies like Patagonia, we need laws to enforce it

If we want to get past “woke capitalism,” this is what it’ll take to get companies to an equitable relationship with both workers and society.
By Kristin Toussaint – A day after the August NBA strike in response to yet another police shooting—this time, Jacob Blake, in Kenosha, Wisconsin—Uber’s head of diversity and inclusion, Bo Young Lee, tweeted out the company’s new billboard campaign. “If you tolerate racism, delete Uber,” the sign read. Lee added, “Now is the time for all people and organizations to stand up for what is right.”

Corporate America had already been examining its complicity in furthering systemic racism and inequality in the wake of a summer rife with police killings of Black people. Uber, for its part, was one of many companies standing up for what’s right—so long as it didn’t have to change too radically. Several weeks earlier, Uber had committed to anti-racism education for riders and drivers, established that it had no tolerance for discrimination, and pledged $1 million toward criminal justice reform. Even so, the company had committed more than $30 million to overturn AB5, the California law that requires its contract drivers be treated as full-time employees. In other words, Uber was arguing against the single biggest thing it could do to foster equity: give its drivers, which some estimates have put at two-thirds non-white, the stability of healthcare and benefits. (When asked for comment, Uber pointed to previous statements on how it’s fighting AB5 because its workers want flexibility.)

Uber’s moves embody what’s known as “woke capitalism,” where businesses respond to societal issues such as systemic racism with representational gestures, from sobering statements to strategic donations. For some people, this is enough. Or so executives hope.

But for others, society’s multiple, overlapping crises have created an opportunity to make companies more accountable—and, ideally, more innovative. “There’s basically no one arguing for shareholder primacy anymore,” says Julius Krein, founder of the public-policy journal American Affairs. “[Corporate leaders] don’t want to leave the current model because they don’t know what comes next, and they’re afraid.” A movement argues that they don’t have to be.

For a glimpse of the future, business leaders need only look to the companies that have best handled the tumult of 2020. They were the ones that were “woke” long before this year. Patagonia’s decision to pay employees while stores were shuttered during lockdowns was not the first time it put workers first: The company has offered on-site childcare for more than three decades. The call Ben & Jerry’s made to dismantle white supremacy following the police killing of George Floyd was not a bandwagon move: The ice cream brand had supported a congressional bill that would study the effects of slavery and discrimination and recommend reparations. Both companies have built reputations as the rare institutions that care about their employees, the communities in which they operate, and the environment. more>

Budget 2020: promising tax breaks, but relying on hope

By Peter Martin – Tax cuts aren’t the half of it.

The personal income tax cuts promised in the budget will cost A$17.8 billion over four years.

The measures aimed at supporting businesses – the temporary instant tax write off of capital investments, the temporary ability to use losses to reduce previous tax payments, the JobMaker hiring credit and the enhanced apprentice wage subsidy — will cost $26.7 billion, $4.8 billion, $4 billion and $1.2 billion.

That’s a total of $36.7 billion — a subsidy for private businesses without precedent.

The clumsy wording in the part of the budget that sets out strategy says the aim is to “drive sustainable, private sector-led growth and job creation”.

‘Driving private sector-led growth’

Driving private sector-led growth doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s easy to get a handle on what it means.

By itself, business isn’t in a position to drive much.

Even with the budget measures – even with the Australian Taxation Office allowing most businesses to write off everything they spend on equipment over the next two years – non-mining business investment is expected to collapse 14.5% this financial year and bounce back only 7.5% the next. more>

A Message From the Future II: The Years of Repair

Can we imagine a better future? If we stop talking about what winning actually looks like, isn’t that the same as giving up?
By Naomi Klein – Another Covid-19 lesson we wanted to highlight had to do with why the abuses that long predated the pandemic suddenly received so much more attention during it. It’s a lesson, perhaps, about the relationship between speed and solidarity. Because for those of us privileged enough to self-isolate, the virus forced a radical and sudden slowdown, a paring and editing down of life to its essentials that was undertaken in a bid to stop the virus’s spread. But that slowness had other, unintended effects as well. It turns out that when the deafening roar of capitalism-as-usual quiets, even a little, our capacity to notice things that were hidden in plain view may grow and expand.

There is no one answer or simple explanation for why we find ourselves in the throes of the deepest and most sustained public reckoning in a half-century with the evil that is white supremacy. But we cannot discount the “solidarity in vulnerability that the pandemic has generated,” as Eddie Glaude Jr. put it, while discussing his brilliant and highly relevant biography of James Baldwin, “Begin Again.” In forcing all of us to confront the porousness of our own bodies in relationship to the vast web of other bodies that sustain us and the people we love — caregivers, farmers, supermarket clerks, street cleaners, and more — the coronavirus instantly exploded the cherished, market-manufactured myth of the individual as self-made island.

For all of these reasons and more, as we searched for a unifying principle that could animate a future worth fighting for, we settled on “The Years of Repair.” The call to repair a deep brokenness has roots in many radical and religious traditions. And it provides a framework expansive enough to connect the interlocking crises in our social, economic, political, informational, and ecological spheres.

Repair work speaks to the need to repair our broken infrastructures of care: the schools, hospitals, and elder care facilities serving the poor and working classes, infrastructures that failed the test of this virus again and again. It also calls on us to repair the vast damage done to the natural world, to clean up toxic sites, rehabilitate wild landscapes, invest in nonpolluting energy sources. It is also a call to begin to repair our stuff rather than endlessly replace it in an ever-accelerating cycle of planned obsolescence — what the film refers to as “the right to repair.” more>

Why Modi’s government is not up to the task

By Prabhat Patnaik – A striking aspect of the 24 percent decline in India’s GDP in the first quarter of 2020-21 compared to the previous year’s first quarter is the decline by 10.3 percent in public administration, defense, and other public services. This is a sector where the GDP is estimated not by the “output” of the sector but by the government expenditure incurred under these heads. The decline in the GDP originating in this sector therefore means a decline in public expenditure. This is surprising for two reasons: first, it shows that government expenditure, instead of being “counter-contractionary” has been “pro-contractionary”; second, during the lockdown caused by the pandemic, one would expect government spending on health care to go up, and thereby raise the overall government expenditure, instead of the fall we are actually observing.

When there is a lockdown, and output contracts, it is incumbent on the government to increase its expenditure. The rise in expenditure reduces the degree of contraction; and it puts purchasing power in the hands of the people so that many of them can maintain their consumption without getting into debt. Even if the government is timid enough not to increase its expenditure, at least it must maintain its expenditure to limit the contraction in GDP; but a fall in government expenditure during the period of a lockdown, which accentuates the overall contraction, is just the opposite of what the government should have done.

True, in such a period, there is a fall in government revenue; but to reduce government spending because of this, so that the fiscal deficit does not increase, is the height of folly. It worsens the contraction of the economy and greatly increases the sufferings of the people. This, however, is exactly what the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has done.

What is more, the Modi government is persisting with this folly. Some may find this accusation strange since on the very first day of parliament the government has come with a supplementary demand of around $32 billion, which, it may be thought, represents substantial additional expenditure. But this impression is wrong. These supplementary demands are meant to cover the expenditure that the government had already announced earlier to cope with the pandemic, which was over and above the budgetary provisions. This already announced expenditure, we know, was quite trivial, amounting altogether to no more than about 1 percent of GDP. True, these supplementary demands will revive India’s flagship program for rural employment scheme under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005. This program had come to a virtual standstill because of lack of funds, but such revival will only entail what has already been promised, not any further expansion. more>

How Leaders Can Regain Trust in Untrusting Times

By Gregory P. Shea – Google employees protest an attempt to silence their activism. Facebook employees stage a virtual walkout. Amazon employees protest over workplace safety, and a company vice president resigns over their firings. Employees at Target and Walmart protest as well. Print and broadcast media struggle with various policies, and prominent journalists resign at the The Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Times. The Washington Post reports on research findings that the COVID-19 pandemic will undermine trust in government for decades.

Isolated data points? Maybe. A sign of the times? Perhaps. Regardless, leaders should take note.

First, leadership is a relationship. No relationship, no leadership. One or more people allow another person to influence their behavior in a manner or direction that the other wishes. That influence can and does come from a wide variety of sources. But regardless of source, no such relationship means no followers, and no followers means no leaders and no leadership. As one Wharton Executive Education participant put it: “We refer to a person who sets the direction for our travel as a ‘leader.’ We refer to a person traveling without followers as ‘a bloke out for a walk.’”

Second, societal and organizational elites have, for decades, chiseled away at their relationship with followers. Systematic shredding of long-standing “do your job, keep your job” cultures in the last 20 to 30 years of the 20th century eviscerated the psychological contract between employer and employee, even as employers complained about the remarkable demise of employee loyalty. Since 1978, CEO pay has increased 1,000%, compared with 11.9% for average workers. CEOs now make 278 times as much as the average worker, up from 20 times in 1965. Trust in government has fallen from about 70% to under 50% over the same period.

Few visible elites paid any appreciable price in the wake of the financial crisis (unlike after the S&L crisis of the 1980s and 1990s), and those who did were frequently seen loading up their wagons with gold before heading out of town and into “retirement.” more>

Updates from Chicago Booth

How effective were stimulus checks in the US?
By Áine Doris – As the United States was hit with COVID-19, Congress passed the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in an attempt to soften the blow from widespread lockdowns and business closures that led to soaring joblessness.

The CARES Act—which included one-time cash payments of $1,200 or more to households starting in April—bolstered incomes and spurred spending as promised, although the effect was uneven, suggests research by Northwestern’s Scott R. Baker, Columbia’s R. A. Farrokhnia, University of Southern Denmark’s Steffen Meyer, Columbia’s Michaela Pagel, and Chicago Booth’s Constantine Yannelis. The researchers conducted an almost real-time review of how a significant slice of the population used the direct payments.

The stimulus prompted an immediate, general uptick in household spending, the researchers find, but households with cash on hand tended to save their stimulus checks, while those without cash on hand spent almost half their checks within 10 days.

The researchers tapped newly accessible data from SaverLife, a nonprofit organization that helps families develop long-term saving habits. The SaverLife data provided detailed, high-frequency information including day-to-day inflows, outflows, and balances of anonymized individual bank accounts. This enabled the researchers to analyze the impact of the CARES payments on households, taking into account changes in overall income level, cash flow, and existing liquidity.

Using data on more than 6,000 US households for April, the researchers calculated households’ marginal propensity to consume―the proportion of every dollar received that they spent from the moment they received the CARES payments.

“We wanted to understand the multiplier effect of CARES payments―how when the government gives you a dollar, you spend it and effectively give someone else a dollar, who then goes on to spend it, giving someone else a dollar, and so on,” Yannelis says. “This is how fiscal stimulus works, so you have to look at people’s marginal propensity to consume to assess the multiplier effect.”

The researchers find a sharp and immediate response as payments started hitting bank accounts. Within the first 10 days, households spent an average of 29 cents from every dollar received. The bulk of this spending was on food, rent, and bills, most likely in response to the shelter-in-place directives and supply-chain restrictions. The spending couldn’t significantly benefit the restaurant, services, and hospitality industries because they were largely shut down to slow the spread of the pandemic. more>

Related>