Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Killer productivity app: VIPOrbit
PCWorld said VIPorbit redefines iPhone productivity. I agree. Here Mike Muhney, co-developer of the original ACT! software, shows me this cool app and what it does.
23 Things They Don't Tell you About Capitalism
Transcript
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. The debate about who's going to pay for the deficit crisis spreads across the nation as various states are taking it out on their public sector workers. What's happening with the whole capitalist system is a matter of great debate. It wasn't too many months ago the front cover of Newsweek magazine said we're all socialists now. So the debate about whither capitalism was at the core of most of the economic debate, although it seems to have died down now as a lot of stimulus money seems to have made the contradictions a little less intense for a while. But what about the future of the capitalist system? Are we facing another major depression? Are we facing a global meltdown? And is there a more rational way to have a capitalist system? Now joining us to talk about all of this is Ha-Joon Chang. He's the author of the book 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. Thanks for joining us.
HA-JOON CHANG, ECONOMIST, UNIV. OF CAMBRIDGE: Thank you.
JAY: So you teach economics at Cambridge.
CHANG: That's right.
JAY: And you've been trying to popularize a better understanding of economics. But first of all, when you say 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism, who's They?
CHANG: Right. Well, they are the supporters of free-market economics, ranging from academics in universities through people in the private sector, government, the journalistic world. I mean, these are people who basically try to justify the status quo. I mean, they're telling people, well, whatever you think about what's going on is all how it has to be. You know. I mean, you don't like income inequality? Tough. I mean, that's the only way to run an efficient economic system. You don't like environmental destruction? Tough. I mean, that's how we become rich. You know. So these are people who have been telling us in the last 30 years that we have to liberalize everything, we have to deregulate everything, we have to make rich people even richer, so that everyone else can become rich, and so on, and engineered all [inaudible] massive policy changes like tax cuts for the rich, business deregulation, the deregulation of the labor market and eroding of labor rights, and so on.
JAY: In your book, in the introduction, you say this is not an anticapitalist manifesto, that capitalism is the best system humans have developed so far, and that there's a more rational way to have capitalism. How do you see that happening when one of the products of this free market and of capitalism is such a concentration of ownership, and as a result such a concentration of power politically, that even if you could imagine a more rational form of capitalism, you can't get there, because these guys own everything?
CHANG: Yes. I mean, there's a lot of truth in there. But let's first of all not forget that actually you don't have to imagine it. I mean, these alternative capitalist systems exist in Sweden, in Finland, in Germany, in Japan, in France. I'm not saying that these countries are somehow Gardens of Eden, but, you know, I mean, when people hear someone criticize free-market capitalism, the kind of capitalism that the United States and Britain practice in the last 30 years, maybe 25 years, people immediately think, oh, okay, so then that--do you want to become Cuba? Do you want to become North Korea? No, actually. There are lots of different ways of running capitalism, and I don't think that the free-market capitalism that you have in the United States today is the only way to run capitalism. So it is not like I'm talking about some hypothetical society that might come 200 years later. No. I mean, these alternatives already exist.
JAY: But a lot of the countries you're talking about in Europe are also--have bought in over the last couple of decades, into this free-market or what they call neoliberal economics, and they're more and more moving in that direction.
CHANG: Well, yes. I mean, they are, and some of them have bubbled quite significantly. But, I mean, you know, it's all relative. I mean, yes, the Swiss are cutting welfare state. But in the Swedish GDP, the welfare spending, social spending account for something like, still, 32 percent of GDP when it is, like--I mean, they are barely 15 percent in the United States. You know. So they are starting from a very different end. And, yes, I mean, it is true that even in Europe there are a lot of people--especially rich people--who would definitely benefit from having American-style capitalism, very strongly pushing for it.
JAY: And the other part of it, to what extent does European affluence depend on having this enormous American market where there is such social polarization and a lot of cheap labor, actually, and a big military force to manage the global system? I mean, can Europe do what it's doing without America doing what it's doing?
CHANG: Well, in terms of the pure economic demand, Europe doesn't really need America very much anymore. I mean, maybe it did in the 1950s and '60s, but today, the European market's bigger than the American market: 60, 70 percent of European trade is within Europe. So, actually, economically it doesn't need the United States anymore. Maybe it--in terms of global geopolitics and so on it does, but I'm not enough of an expert to comment on that.
JAY: So in the book--and here's the book again, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism, you go through 23 things. So let's do one or two of those things, and then in--this is the beginning of a series of interviews we're going to be doing. We'll run one every other day till we do 23 things. And we'll do a couple now, and then we'll move on. So Thing 1: There's no such thing as a free market. So explain that, 'cause we're all being told that not only are we in a free market, they should be freer [inaudible]
CHANG: Exactly. Yeah. No. I mean, a lot of people find that statement quite mysterious, because some people don't like the free market. But we know what is a free market when we see one, at least. I mean, it may be tricky to define in theoretical terms, but in the same way we know what an elephant is without being able to define it when we see one [inaudible]
JAY: And your argument is there's no such thing. So why do you say that?
CHANG: No, actually not. Yeah. The point is that all markets have a lot of regulations. I mean, this is without exception. But people think there's a free market only because they accept those existing regulations so much that they fail to see them. You know, for example, do you think that America is a free labor market? Yes, I mean, it has some regulations, but you'd think it's relatively free compared to European market. But how about the ban on child labor? You know, I mean, this is shutting out 30 percent of potential labor force from the labor market. Don't forget that in this country and in the European countries and in the past and in many developing countries today, children as young as four or five, you know, millions of children, hundreds of millions of those children work.
JAY: And it wasn't free market that gave rise to a ban on child labor. It took government and a law and people saying in the interests of the society you can't have child labor.
CHANG: Exactly. So initially when people tried to, through government legislation, regulate this child labor, a lot of the supporters of the free market are outraged. They say this is the most ridiculous intervention that undermines the very basis of a free economy, i.e., freedom of contract. You know, these children want to work; these people want to employ them; what is your problem?
JAY: It also seems rather contradictory that on the one hand, some of these forces defend the free market; on the other hand, it's okay to ban collective bargaining rights. Like, it's not okay for workers to say, I'm not going to sell you my labor unless you meet certain conditions. There's no free market for that.
CHANG: Yeah. No. I mean, [inaudible] total double standard. You know. And basically the very reason why I wrote that thing, Thing 1, is to show that, you know, free-marketeers have been telling us that while we have this scientifically defined entity called the market, the free market, and any attempt to meddle with this its workings is unscientific, politically motivated, and so on, but actually what I'm saying is that no, actually, the so-called free-market position is as political as any other position.
JAY: I mean, one of the reasons this whole issue of free market came up has had a lot to do with the--during the '50s and '60s, and before World War II, a lot of countries around the world had a certain kind of nationalist approach to their economies. Especially in Latin America and other places where they had public enterprises, there were tariffs. Even in Canada, for example, there were high tariffs for a long time. So free-market had a lot to do with opening up markets for foreign and US investment.
CHANG: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. No. But, you know, the interesting thing is that in Thing 7 I explain how the very idea of protectionism was invented in the United States, you know, that Alexander Hamilton, this country's first ever Treasury secretary, the guy you see on the $10 bill, I mean, he came up with this idea of infant industry protection, arguing that the United States as a young country needs to protect and nurture its young producers, the infants, against that competition from these big, grown-up companies from Britain and other European countries. As a result, actually, the United States had the highest tariff rate in the world for over a century, up to the Second World War.
JAY: Which gives them time to build up [inaudible] economy.
CHANG: Exactly, yeah. But, unfortunately, the history [inaudible] once they've reached a point, they say, well, everyone else should do free trade. So actually the Americans were in the 19th century criticizing the British for preaching free trade, pointing out that actually Britain also grew on the basis of, you know, protection and subsidies in the 18th century. Now that they are on the top of the world, they tell us Americans not to do it. But we will do it. You know. I mean, actually, there is the--in the book I cites Ulysses Grant, one of your presidents, saying that, you know, the English tell us to do free trade; yes, we will do free trade, but only after 200 years of protectionism, when we are as rich as they are.
JAY: Yeah, I guess. And then once you become an imperial power yourself, you start having imperial ideas about what's good and what's bad. Yeah.
CHANG: Yeah. You are seeing the same with the later developers. For instance, Japan notoriously controlled foreign investment. Today you go to the WTO, the World Trade Organization, the Japanese government routinely kind of submits these documents which say regulating foreign investment is bad for economic development.
JAY: In the same story in Canada, which was they had high tariffs for a long time,--
CHANG: That's right, yeah.
JAY: --but once you started to have some very big pools of capital in Canada that wanted to start going abroad, all of a sudden, okay, you can drop our tariffs now, and now all of you drop your tariffs.
CHANG: Exactly.
JAY: Yeah. Okay. In the next segment of our interview, we're going to go to Thing 2: Companies should not be run in the interest of their owners. That's a provocative one. And please join us for the next segment of our interview with Ha-Joon Chang on The Real News Network.
Transcript
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. Welcome back to our series on 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. And joining us again is Ha-Joon Chang. Thanks for joining us again.
HA-JOON CHANG, ECONOMIST, UNIV. OF CAMBRIDGE: Thank you.
JAY: So we're onto Thing 2, although as we do things, we're kind of jumping around.
CHANG: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
JAY: But at any rate, companies should not be run in the interest of their owners. So that's sacrilegious. How could you say such a thing?
CHANG: That's right. Yeah. No, you know--.
JAY: Our duty is to our shareholders, they say.
CHANG: Exactly. Yeah. No. You know, I mean, we have been told repeatedly that, you know, people take better care of things, be they physical things like a house or notional thing like a company, when they have ownership stake. So the companies are owned by shareholders, and therefore companies should be run in the interest of the shareholders. That's the best for the company. And even though what you do is good for the company, it's good for the national economy as well. So everyone benefits. Now that ,we have bought into this logic in a massive way, while we are feeling quite uncomfortable by the fact that these shareholder-driven companies have been doing a lot of nasty things, I mean, shutting down plants, sacking people. So, you know, on the one hand, you philosophically agree that we should let companies be run in the interest of the shareholders while we are suffering from all this.
JAY: But they're saying that's efficiency and you need this toughness, the self-interested shareholders, to introduce real efficiency.
CHANG: Oh, exactly, yeah, that's exactly what they say. But what has been actually happening is--because these shareholders, despite being legal owners--. You know, I mean, today millions of people own shares in a company, so no one really has a long-term stake; you know, they can leave at the click of a mouse by selling their shares. So, actually, these shareholders are very impatient. They want results now. I mean, they want it--.
JAY: But in some companies you have, like, Warren Buffett's position in Coca-Cola or you have shareholders that are essentially billionaires, not small shareholders, who own such a big stake in the company, it's not so easy for them to sell.
CHANG: That's right, yeah, yeah. Those are exceptions. But today, you know, for example, General Motors [inaudible] at one point that there's [inaudible] shareholder [inaudible] was someone who owned 10 percent of the company. Basically, in the last 30 years the professional managers have basically decided to run the company in the interests of floating shareholders, because if you don't be nice to them, they basically begin to sell their shares in such a way that your company's taken over by a, you know, hostile--.
JAY: Right, but if you don't run it in the interests of your shareholders, who does management run it in the interest of? 'Cause what's happening now, especially in the banking sector, but some other places, is CEOs and senior management may not be actually all that worried about shareholders. They run it in the interest of themselves. And they even make bad business decisions if it gives them big bonuses.
CHANG: Yeah. No, no. But, you know, this is actually what I call an unholy alliance between the professional managers and floating shareholders. So floating shareholders demand short-term profit. The best way to get short-term profit is to sack everyone you can think of, not invest in anything that brings a return in the long-term--equipment, research, training. You know, the professional managers actually do not care, because by the time the effect of these decisions kick in and your company decline, probably you are in another job. You know. Maybe you are retired.
JAY: Now, there are some companies that have more longer-term planning. You'd have to say Google does and some of the other bigger tech firms.
CHANG: No, no. I mean, yeah, I'm generalizing, but there are obviously [inaudible]
JAY: But if they don't run it in the interest of shareholders, and if management doesn't run it in the interest of them enriching themselves, who are they going to run it in the interest of? 'Cause how are they going to run it in the interest of society unless society has some kind of ownership stake?
CHANG: No. Exactly. So this is why a lot of countries have arrangements to give a voice to, for example, trade unions or the local community or other so-called stakeholders. So once again, I mean, Americans should not believe that the American way's the only way to run capitalism. Go to Germany. I mean, all the major companies have two-tier board structure, and on top of the managerial board, you have this supervisory board where half the members are selected by the trade unions. And this supervisory board has to give approval to big decisions like shutting down plants, agreeing to the merger or taking over some other company. And as a result, a lot of, naturally, resistance have been built into the system towards this American-style hostile takeover. In the whole 60 years of history of post-Second World War German history, there were something--only two or three hostile takeovers of any major company. And the German economy's as [inaudible] well as the American economy. So don't think that by involving other stakeholders, like the employees or the suppliers or the consumers or the local community, that you actually going to ruin the company. Actually, the American way has ruined the companies, because it has led to companies basically making decisions that boost profit in the short run but undermine the position of the company in the long run. You know, this has become so embarrassing that even Jack Welch, the guru of this shareholder value movement, has recently come out and said that the shareholder value maximization was--and I'm quoting--"the dumbest idea in the world". You know. So you have to think there is this myth that, yes that the hard-edged American way is the best way to make money, actually, you know, that the root cause of the current financial crisis is in those things, is--.
JAY: But if you're going to impose more of a social mandate on companies, like, for example, there's--in Canada and London, Ontario, there's a Ford plant that at its height employed 5,000 people. Apparently this fall its likely to close down. Ford has decided in its global manufacturing operations this plant doesn't have a role to play anymore. The only way to have some community say in the closure of that plant is if there was some--either by law, regulation, or at the level of ownership, and certainly in the auto industry you'd think there's an argument, given that the auto industry would be right down the toilet if it hadn't been for public money.
CHANG: Yeah.
JAY: But I don't--but I'm not finding you arguing for more kind of forms of public ownership as a way [inaudible]
CHANG: Oh, no. I mean, it's one of the ways. I mean, you know, I'm quite open-minded about the practical tools we use. But let me give you an example. [inaudible] in the 1970s, actually, Volkswagen, the German car company, went bankrupt in the way, say, General Motors has recently. It was saved by the state government of Lower Saxony, where the Volkswagen headquarters is, and it still had--the state government still has a 90 percent stake in the company. And when they bailed it out, in return they actually demanded that there is this law installed which demands that Volkswagen, when trying to, you know, shut down factories [inaudible] at least in Germany we'll have to get the approval of state government of Lower Saxony. You can use something like that. And, actually, the amazing thing this time around is that the American government, the British government, they give all this money to the bankrupt companies, practically nationalized them, become the biggest shareholder, and they can even tell the employers what to do. You know, what's--I mean, this is so outrageous. I mean, you are not even playing by the capitalist rule. Capitalist rule says that if you have the majority stake in a company, you can basically tell your employees to do whatever you want to do.
JAY: You tell the board. And, like, in the case of General Motors, they could have told General Motors, for example, we campaigned and got elected on a green agenda, so how about doing something about it? They never said a word [inaudible]
CHANG: No. But, I mean, you know, these people are now even not even playing by the rule of capitalism. For them, nothing affects their wealth.
JAY: Okay. In the next segment of our interview we're going to go to number 3 thing: Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be. Okay. Join us on the next segment of our interview on 23 things they--well, they didn't tell you about capitalism, but we think they should have. Thanks for joining us, and join us again.
Transcript
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. We're continuing our series with Ha-Joon Chang on 23 Things They Didn't Tell You about Capitalism--but we will. Thanks for joining us.
HA-JOON CHANG, ECONOMIST, UNIV. OF CAMBRIDGE: Thank you.
JAY: So just to remind everybody, you teach at Cambridge, economics. And so here we are with the book and we're going to continue. Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be. Well, the market says that's what they should get paid, so how could it be wrong?
CHANG: Exactly. You know, I mean, we have been brainwashed, this idea that whatever market decides to pay people, we have to accept. You know, so if Mr. Blankfein at Goldman Sachs gets paid $50 million per year, it must be because he's worth it. You know, if people are poor in developing countries, it must be because they have low productivity.
JAY: Well, the argument's going to be: if the market doesn't decide, who will? And how?
CHANG: Exactly. But is it really the market that's deciding? And, I mean, that's my point, because, you know, for example, if you liberalize that in terms of immigration, probably 80, maybe even 90 percent of people in the rich countries can be and probably will be replaced by cheaper immigrants. And we are not just talking about cleaners and taxi drivers; we are talking about medical doctors [inaudible] engineers.
JAY: Yeah, that's a good example. If you created a process that would actually give credit, deservedly and tested, to doctors, you could probably have ten times the number of doctors in a year or two.
CHANG: Exactly. You know. And, you know, I personally replaced a British guy 20 years ago when I got my job in Cambridge. So it's not like--.
JAY: Did they pay you less?
CHANG: It's not like people from developing countries actually have low productivity. I mean, the reason why these people cannot move and compete for jobs in the rich countries is because of immigration control.
JAY: And the whole society they operate in.
CHANG: Exactly. Yeah. Now the point is that the reason why people are rich in the rich countries is not because they are individually so wonderful. It's because they live in a society with good social system, good institutions, you know, good scientific infrastructure, and so on. I mean, you know, and smart ones actually know it. I mean, Warren Buffett in an interview about 15 years ago said, I actually believe that most of the money I made has been made by the society, not by me, because, you know, just imagine, drop me in the middle of Bangladesh. What am I going to be? I'll be a farmer. You know? Probably I'd be a poor farmer [inaudible]
JAY: Well, that's one of the things I don't think you talked about directly in here. And maybe this is--I think this should've been 25 things, and I hope we have time to do 25. But at any rate. But I would've made 24 "Capital is the source of all wealth". And it's capital that creates jobs. And somehow it's the private owner of the capital is the one that's creating the value for the society.
CHANG: Exactly. Yeah. No, I mean, it's not just capital in the narrow monetary sense, but, I mean, the whole social infrastructure. So even if you are a brilliant scientist, if you live in a country where the labs have no equipment, there's no research grant for science, and there's no good university system where you can recruit good research assistants, you don't do research. So, actually, the point that I'm trying to make in that example, however striking it may sound in the beginning, is actually quite a reasonable one. I mean, it is that our productivity, individual productivity, is largely collectively determined, and therefore you cannot have these people argue that, well, I get $50 million because I'm worth it--no, because his $50 million earning is supported by the whole society.
JAY: Well, that's--then you could go to my point 25 would be: if the whole society is producing the wealth of the society, why are we still living with forms of private ownership that come from the 1500s? But--.
CHANG: Yeah, no, no. But, I mean, on that issue, you know, we have seen the failure of these socialist economies where they abolished private ownership but it still didn't kind of fully socialize that control, because it ended up concentrating control in the hands of a small minority.
JAY: Yeah, but we talk about many forms of capitalism. Maybe there's many forms of alternatives to capitalism, 'cause the 20th century form of socialism clearly concentrated power in these one-party states and all of that. But you could have public ownership in many diversified ways--municipally, state, federal, co-ops, collectives, non-profits [inaudible]
CHANG: Yeah. And already, I mean, in a lot of economies those things play a very important role. You know, I mean, you talk about country like Singapore, I mean, you think it's a free-trade economy. Yes, it is, but on the other hand, the government owns all the land, 85 percent of housing is supplied by government-owned housing corporation. I mean, in countries like Denmark, agricultural cooperatives have played an extremely important role in its economic development. I mean, of course, it is not that agricultural anymore, so that is less important. But, you know, in China you have all the forms of hybrid ownership. I mean, it's difficult to know whether this form is truly private or semipublic. You know [inaudible]
JAY: My point 25 would be: you can't have more rational forms of an economy when you have a handful of people owning the commanding heights of the economy, 'cause they exercise too much political power.
CHANG: Yeah, exactly. And, yeah, they're making sure that their ideas are [inaudible]
JAY: It doesn't matter how irrational what they want [is]. If that's--they just have the power to ram it through.
CHANG: Yeah, and especially when they control the media. I mean, they can tell people, well, you may not like it--.
JAY: Not us, not us.
CHANG: Yeah. You may not like it, but this is how the world works. And, you know, I mean, I just cannot believe how the people in Britain, United States, and several European countries have swallowed this nonsense that the deficit problem has been caused by kind of social welfare spending.
JAY: Yeah, it's actually the problem--it's really the fault of people who are going to retire. If only they would retire later, everything would just be fine.
CHANG: That's right.
JAY: Okay. Next. Most people--the washing machine has changed the world more than the Internet has.
CHANG: Yup.
JAY: Okay. Make--what's that? What do you mean?
CHANG: Yeah, I mean, you know, through that I was trying to tell people that we shouldn't judge things--well, so to speak, from the wrong end of the telescope. You know, we tend to undervalue things that already have been achieved and think only the newest things are important. So, for example, the reason why I brought out the washing machine is that the washing machine and other household appliances have enormously changed the way that we live. I mean, you know, it has enabled, especially, women to enter the labor market in a major way. And that has changed the bargaining positions of men and women within family, that has changed the number of children that women have, that have abolished some preference that most rural societies used to have.
JAY: But don't minimize the social importance of online dating. Alright. Here we go. Next, assume the worst about people and you get the worst.
CHANG: Yes. In the standard free-market economics, it is assumed that we only work for our own self-interests, and therefore everything has to be designed to channel that into productive activity, and the best way to do it is to do it through free-market, the invisible hand of the free market. But, actually, the world cannot work in the way it does if we actually had individuals behaving in the way they are described in the textbook. You know, for example, the most striking example is this method of industrial action called work-to-rule. Simply by working according to the rule, actually the workers can reduce their output by 30, 40, 50 percent. Factories are run in the way they run only because these workers take extra initiative. They do things that they don't have to according to the contract. You know, sometimes they take shortcuts, sometimes they put in extra effort, and so on. This shows that the economy runs in the way it runs only because people have a lot of goodwill. So we have to actually build a system where we exploit this, the good side of people, while subduing the kind of selfish side.
JAY: Well, this goes back to what we were saying before, because if you believe that privately owned capital is the source of all wealth, then the private capitalist desire to get as rich as they possibly can is the driver of the society. So, like they said in the movie, greed is good, but then they go ask working class kids to go off and die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like, where--you know, it's okay--like, their sacrifice makes sense.
CHANG: Exactly. Yeah.
JAY: But it's--of course, they're getting other people to go make the sacrifice.
CHANG: Yeah. No. You know, I mean, on this I can only agree with Gore Vidal, who some time ago famously said that the American economic system is capitalism for the workers and socialism for the rich. So there you go.
JAY: Alright. So in the next segment of our series, we're going to deal with greater macroeconomic stability has not made the world economy more stable. And that's a really important concept. So please join us for the next segment of our interview series on 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism.
Transcript
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. We're continuing our series of interviews on 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. Joining us again now is Ha-Joon Chang. He teaches at Cambridge, economics, and he's the author of this book. And we'll just get right back into it. Thing #6: Greater macroeconomic stability has not made the world economy more stable. So the argument is, if we control inflation, we control the world economy, and everything will just be prosperous.
HA-JOON CHANG, ECONOMIST, UNIV. OF CAMBRIDGE: Yes. I mean, the, I mean, starting point is a very commonsensical argument saying that you need stability if you want to make sure that people invest, because investment brings return in the long term. So if there is a lot of instability in the economy, people don't want to invest. Now, I mean, that may be quite commonsensical argument, but in this discourse, basically stability has been equated with low inflation, low price inflation. But the point is that actually the macroeconomic stability has many different dimensions, and, actually, price dimension, unless price inflation goes into really high area, is actually the least of the problem for ordinary people.
JAY: I mean, I guess that's part of the question is stability for who.
CHANG: Exactly, yeah. So, yes, I mean, the main central banks of the world insist that inflation should be below 2, 3 percent. There was quite the surprise when the chief economist of the IMF recently said, oh, even 4 percent is okay. But, you know, I mean, hand-on-heart, can you really tell me that you can tell what the current rate of inflation is? I mean, can you really tell me whether you can tell the difference between 2 percent inflation and 4 percent inflation? No. But, you know, the policies that have been used to control inflation basically have exercised such pressure on the overall economy, it has made a lot of people unemployed and lose their livelihood and so on.
JAY: It's kind of ironic, because if you keep inflation low, and then you can create asset bubbles, these are worth a fortune with low inflation, 'cause now all your asset bubbles [inaudible] except give chaos because of the asset bubble.
CHANG: Exactly. Yeah. One problem is that in measuring price inflation we do not include things like the price of the real estate. So that's one critical mistake. But basically all this inflation rhetoric is in the interest of the financial industry, because, you know, they basically have most of their assets that have returns denominated in the kind of current price terms--if the inflation is high, they lose money. So they basically keep emphasizing the importance of inflation. But, you know, I mean, even research done by economists from the World Bank and the IMF (depending on which research you look at) say that below 10, 20, according to some research even 40 percent inflation, there's actually no evidence whatsoever that higher inflation is bad for the economy.
JAY: Well, when you start getting into inflations of 15, 20 percent, and even over 10 percent, then isn't that bad for ordinary people too? Their wages are worth less, then interest rates usually go way up at that time, so now you can't afford your mortgage anymore. I mean, there must be a point [inaudible]
CHANG: Yeah, no, of course. Yeah. I mean, there comes a point where it can really eat into people's living standard. But, you know, I mean, that level is actually probably somewhere between 10 and 20 percent, rather than one or 2 percent, as the free-market [inaudible] if you try to kind of have a syringe, but put your finger on the end and try to compress the air, initially, yeah, it's quite easy; but as you try to go further and further down it becomes more difficult. So, yes, I mean, bringing down the inflation from, I don't know, 20 percent to 10 percent, yeah, it's probably going to have more benefit than the cost. But as you try to bring it down from, you know, 5 percent to 2 percent, 4 percent to 1 percent, we have to do a lot of things which depress demand, which translate into job losses. And, you know, of course, I mean, everyone as a consumer might benefit, because their grocery bill is 1 percent smaller, but don't forget that a lot of people are paying for this in the form of being unemployed.
JAY: Right. So if you're sitting on assets, if you have a lot of money and a lot of ownership of things, you want to protect the value of those assets. You don't want them to depreciate through inflation. And so if people lose their jobs, that's not your problem I suppose.
CHANG: Exactly. Yeah.
JAY: Okay. So next piece we go. And, of course, you can get the book and get the whole elaboration of these arguments. I should have said right off the top this book's a fun read, and it's actually got a sense of humor throughout it. Okay, #7: Free-market policies rarely make poor countries rich. Okay, we talked about that in the beginning, how it's okay to have protectionism when you're a big power, but once you're big, everyone else should have free trade. So I think we'll go to #8.
CHANG: Yeah.
JAY: Capital has a nationality. Now, that's an important point, because a lot of people think of corporations or talk about them as if they're completely transnational.
CHANG: Yeah. Well, I mean, the corporations have been playing up this aspect that they now have operations in many countries, and they can go to, I don't know, China or Vietnam or whatever, so your US workers had better accept lower wages and poorer working conditions. So certainly they have played up this aspect of globalization, if you like. But if you actually look at objective statistics, yes, these countries do now quite a bit of production abroad--say, in the case of American companies, probably close to 30 percent of production is conducted in foreign countries. But, actually, most of the core activities, like research and development, strategic decision-making, and so on, they are still in the home country.
JAY: Well, according to the American Manufacturers Association, if I have this correctly, the United States is still the biggest manufacturer in the world.
CHANG: Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah.
JAY: China, they're saying even though China's gross numbers may be a little higher this year, it has to do with a lower American dollar. In terms of actual output, the United States is still the number-one manufacturer.
CHANG: That's right, yeah. And also, you know, let's take the case of the Philippines. I mean, you know, the World Bank every year publishes these statistics showing the proportion of high-tech products in your export. According to this number, the Philippines is second most high-tech economy in the world after Singapore. But why then does the Philippines have only $2,000 per capita income? Because all the brainy things are done in the United States, in Japan, in Korea, and they just send these things, the Philippine workers put it together, they go out as Philippine export. But since they do not control the core technology, since they do not control the strategic management, the Filipinos get only the wages.
JAY: Alright. Well, you've got a chapter here: would you not live in the postindustrial age? And you talk about the importance of making stuff. One part of that is I think there's a kind of weird underestimation of the amount of stuff that gets made in the United States, how big an exporter it is. I believe it's the third-largest exporter after China and Germany. And one of the reasons it doesn't need to be such a bigger exporter: it has such an enormous domestic market. What do you make of this kind of--while certainly a lot of stuff was moved offshore, this is a big economy.
CHANG: Yeah. No. I mean, the US is--yeah. I mean, despite--you know, at one point it was producing something like half the world manufacturing output. So compared to that, yes, I mean, it has lost a lot of manufacturing--.
JAY: But is this part of a kind of a psychological warfare towards workers? Oh, you're losing so much industry, you'd better not act up or it's all going to go?
CHANG: Yeah, no. And, I mean, it has many sources. I mean, one of the sources is this overdevelopment of the financial industry, which largely--thanks to deregulation, not because of genuine innovation--. You know, Paul Volcker once famously said that the only socially useful financial innovation that we have seen in the last half a century is the ATM. I mean, I probably wouldn't go as far as that, but, you know, a lot of these so-called financial innovations were basically making money by lobbying to deregulate so that you can do more dubious things, and this has really raised the profit rate in the financial sector. And therefore a lot of people have decided that that's where the money is--we don't need industry.
JAY: So what's your argument? They say you don't need to make stuff. It's okay to have services, knowledge-based industry, finance, and let the rest of the world make stuff.
CHANG: Yes, but this is totally unrealistic. You know, in the United States, trade deficit in manufactured goods is something like equivalent to 4 percent of GDP. The trade surplus that you make in services, including financial services, is only about 1 percent of GDP. So you have been running all this deficit for years. I mean, that's why you have sold so many Treasury bills to the Chinese. So this notion that somehow you have a service sector that is strong and big enough to finance your manufacturing demand is completely based on myth. And also, don't forget, I mean, the countries like Switzerland that you think live on taking care of dirty money deposited by Third World dictators and selling things like cuckoo clocks and cowbells to American tourists actually, in per capita terms, is the most industrialized economy in the world. It literally has the biggest manufacturing output in per capita terms. Of course, they're only 7 million people and they tend to specialize in--.
JAY: But they still think making stuff matters, even if they have such a big banking sector.
CHANG: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.
JAY: Right.
CHANG: Yeah. And, you know, in history there is no country that has become rich without having a strong manufacturing sector--I mean, unless, you are, I don't know, Brunei, a small island floating on oil.
JAY: Okay. So in the next segment of our interview we're going to deal with Thing 10. Thing 10 is: The US does not have the highest living standard in the world. And we're also going to talk about the importance of wages. So please join us for the next segment of our interview in this series, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism.
End of Transcript
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
