From Against Monopoly:
A long but good comparison of European political economy trends with mainstream macroeconomic analysis in the U.S.
Rick Snyder, Michigan governor, claims “Michigan is not Wisconsin”. People take this to mean Snyder doesn’t want to bust unions. That’s wrong. What Snyder means is he’s going to use a different strategy than Walker in Wisconsin. Walker is a bare-knuckle street fighter. Snyder hires a hit-man. Snyder smiles, tells you what you want to hear, lies about his priorities, and then has his hit-men crush you. Snyder claims he wants to negotiate with unions and isn’t out to “bust the unions”. So far, Rick Snyder has largely gotten a free pass compared to Scott Walker in Wisconsin. The national news media concentrates on Wisconsin and the protests are largest there. But part of the attention in Wisconsin is because in Wisconsin the power grab to end collective bargaining rights has been so blatant, so clear. It’s made great theater. And the media love theater.
In Michigan, the effort to end bargaining rights and to bust unions is apparently just as strong, but it’s more subtle, more sophisticated. In Wisconsin, you only have to read a single proposed bill to see that they want to end collective bargaining rights. In Michigan, you have to connect the dots to see the pattern.
First off, there are over 40 anti-union bills that have been introduced in the Michigan legislature since January 1 that have consequences for unions. In some cases, it’s not just public employee unions under assault, it’s private unions too. In Michigan there isn’t one bill that does the big repeal of rights. It’s lots of bills each chipping away at one right or another. In one case, the bill doesn’t repeal collective bargaining rights for the private sector in all Michigan, just in to-be-named-later “zones”. In another bill, a specific work rule bargaining right is over-ruled for teachers. It’s the death of collective bargaining by a million cuts.
If all these bills pass, and there’s no indication from Snyder that he would veto any of them, they mark a significant roll-back of collective bargaining rights in Michigan. But there’s a hidden strategy that’s even bigger. Many of the bills are about increasing the autocratic powers of “emergency financial managers”. In Michigan “emergency financial managers” are appointed by the Governor and state Treasurer. These emergency financial managers are appointed to take-over the management of local school boards, cities, counties, or townships that encounter financial difficulties. Emergency financial managers are not accountable to local residents or voters at all. They report only to the governor. Further, emergency financial managers have the powers to unilaterally revoke all union contracts and negotiations. Snyder and the Republicans are moving swiftly to increase the already hefty power of these emergency financial managers. A spokesman for the Republican majority leader in the legislature claims these bills are not about busting unions but about “protecting municipalities from bankruptcy. From The Detroit News:
“We’re not out to destroy anything, we’re out to help everybody,” Marsden said.
“That plan is aimed at keeping municipalities from falling into bankruptcies that will cost people jobs.
But if the objective is to protect municipalities from bankruptcy, why are the biggest budget cuts aimed at revenue sharing and schools? Right now “emergency financial managers” seem only like a hypothetical to most residents and voters. After all there are only 4-5 such financial managers in the state. Detroit Public Schools and the cities of Pontiac, Ecorse, and Highland Park have them (there maybe another one or two, I’m not sure). But after the budget is implemented there will be a LOT of cities and school districts in serious financial trouble. Then the governor appoints his emergency financial managers. Then the union contracts can be nullified. All without legislation.
Wisconsin gets the attention and Walker takes the heat. Meanwhile, Snyder moves quietly, counting on people not connecting the dots until it’s too late and it’s done. It’s important to maintain collective bargaining.
First revision to the 4th qtr 2010 GDP results are out. I’ll outsource the reporting and commentary to Mark Thoma and Ryan Avent:
Fourth quarter GDP was revised downward:
Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010, (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 2.6 percent…
The downward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected an upward revision to imports and downward revisions to state and local government spending and to personal consumption expenditures (PCE) that were partly offset by an upward revision to exports.
And Britain’s economy shrank by more than initially thought:
Britain’s economy shrank more than initially estimated in the fourth quarter, complicating the task of the Bank of England as a split deepens among policy makers on whether to withdraw stimulus.
Gross domestic product fell 0.6 percent from the previous three months, compared with an initial estimate for a 0.5 percent drop, the Office for National Statistics said today in London. The statistics office said its “best estimate” for the impact of cold weather on the data remains 0.5 percent. The slump was led by construction and investment.
The American data helps explain labor market figures that looked unusually bad given growth. In both cases, the fiscal and monetary authorities should be asking themselves whether they’ve overestimated the performance of these economies and their ability to handle big, and largely unnecessary, short-term budget cuts.
Though certainly better than lower growth, a 2.6% growth rate is not much progress. It’s basically treading water, though barely. To “recover” what was lost in the recession, including lost jobs, we need to grow much faster than that. Unfortunately for the millions of unemployed, problems at the state and local level are far from over, there are other headwinds working against growth as well (e.g. the prospect of higher oil prices, the end of the stimulus package), but policymakers have moved on to other things. And worse, the main topic presently, cutting the budget, works against the employment and output growth.
The comment I’ve seen on the overall trend is lifted from “Goldilocksisableachblonde” in from Thoma’s blog:
“It’s basically treading water…”
In aggregate , that’s accurate. When you break it down by income groups in the population , you’ve got a bunch who are treading water , a few walking on water , and the rest are drowning.
Few nations were hit harder initially by the financial crisis in 2008 than Iceland. It’s economy had grown rich around four very large (relative to Iceland) banks that were players in the big global
casino financial industry expansion. In the U.S., U.K., and most other large developed countries governments responded with large bank-bailout packages. The economic logic is that the banks and the banking system is too interconnected, too large, and too important to let it fail. There’s a part of this argument that has economic truth. To the extent that the creditors (depositors) of a bank are ordinary citizens and businesses in the country, letting a bank fail will have disastrous macroeconomic consequences. But this is only true to the extent that these ordinary depositors get wiped out and lose their deposits. Depositors were in large part not protected in 1929-33 when banks failed across the U.S. and that led to worsening of the Great Depression. It also led to the creation of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC is still on the job protecting little depositors (and our economy).
But in the Great Global Financial Crisis, the U.S. government didn’t just try to rescue the little depositors, it rescued the banks themselves. There’s a huge difference. In rescuing the banks as corporations, the government rescued the large wealthy depositors who should have known better. They rescued the shareholders who selected the managers that caused the banks to get in trouble. They rescued the very management teams that had just failed so spectacularly. At the time, the argument made by the government for rescuing the banks was that they were “too big to fail”. This little phrase, often abbreviated as TBTF, came to be a short-hand logic for bailing out the banks.
The problem is that the economic justification for a “bailout” calls for protecting the little, ordinary depositors, not the banks. In practice, that’s what FDIC does. It “rescues” the little depositors when the bank fails. It lets the bank and it’s management fail. But the Bush and Obama administrations did not do that. Instead they bailed out the banks and the bank shareholders, arguing there was no alternative.
Iceland, however, shows there was an alternative. Iceland rescued (guaranteed) deposits by ordinary Icelanders and let the banks themselves fail. It has worked pretty well. Much better than Ireland’s approach that rescued the banks themselves. From the New Zealand Herald by way of Daily Bail:
Unlike other nations, including the US and Ireland, which injected billions of dollars of capital into their financial institutions to keep them afloat, Iceland placed its biggest lenders in receivership. It chose not to protect creditors of the country’s banks, whose assets had ballooned to US$209 billion, 11 times gross domestic product.
The crisis almost sank the country. The krona lost 58 per cent of its value by the end of November 2008, inflation reached 19 per cent in January 2009, GDP fell 7 per cent that year and the Prime Minister resigned after nationwide protests.
But with the economy projected to grow 3 per cent this year, Iceland’s decision to let the banks fail is looking smart.
- “Iceland did the right thing by making sure its payment systems continued to function while creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks,” says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University in New York. “Ireland’s done all the wrong things, on the other hand. That’s probably the worst model.”
In the dead of the night Republicans in Wisconsin vote to end collective bargaining rights of unions who were not supportive of Governor Walker’s election. The state assembly (the lower house of the legislature) has acted while the Senate is adjourned. The Senate has been unable to convene for lack of a quorum. However, this is not exactly democracy in action. From AP News:
With the Senate immobilized, Assembly Republicans decided to act and convened the chamber Tuesday morning.
Democrats launched a filibuster, throwing out dozens of amendments and delivering rambling speeches. Each time Republicans tried to speed up the proceedings, Democrats rose from their seats and wailed that the GOP was stifling them.
Debate had gone on for 60 hours and 15 Democrats were still waiting to speak when the vote started around 1 a.m. Friday. Speaker Pro Tem Bill Kramer, R-Waukesha, opened the roll and closed it within seconds.
Democrats looked around, bewildered. Only 13 of the 38 Democratic members managed to vote in time
The President is missing. Could we get the candidate back?
The concerted effort to eliminate collective bargaining rights has spread well beyond Wisconsin. So have the protests. Reports have protests in 38 state capitols this week, including even Montana. Heck, even the protesters in Cairo are expressing support and solidarity with the workers in Wisconsin. But there’s a giant gap in the protester lines. President Obama is staying out of it. Apparently President Obama doesn’t have a strong opinion on workers’ bargaining rights. Interesting because candidate Obama had a strong opinion and made a strong promise:
From Alan Blinder via Brad deLong (bold emphasis mine):
Alan Blinder: The Economic Silly Season Is Upon Us: ‘Debt ceilings’ and ‘job killing’ spending are two dumb ideas. Obsessing on the deficit while unemployment is at 9% is another:
Our country seems mired deeply in the silly season…. The silliness comes in at least four parts. The first is the debate over raising the national debt ceiling…. The increase in the debt each year is simply the difference between total expenditures and total receipts, both of which come from the annual budget. If Congress wants a smaller national debt, it must either spend less or tax more…. [N]either party can just command the national debt to stop growing. Some people see the debt ceiling as a way to force spending cuts that Congress would otherwise refuse to make. Maybe. But it’s a clumsy and risky way that, among other things, could endanger the credit-worthiness of the United States government if our inability to float new debt made it impossible to raise needed cash. And for what purpose? To accomplish something that Congress has the power to do anyway?
The second element of silliness is the belief that the American public stands solidly behind rapid and large budget cuts. Sure, and they also want better weather…. The public wants smaller deficits, lower taxes and less spending in the abstract. But when it comes to specifics, it finds few spending cuts that it likes….
The necessity to choose among various spending cuts and tax increases brings me to the third element of silliness—the one that seems to afflict only Republicans. How many times have you heard Speaker of the House John Boehner (and others) refer to “job-killing government spending”? That phrase has become an official GOP mantra, on a par with “death taxes” and “death panels”—and it’s just about as truthful…. [T]he government should be a smart steward of the public’s money…. [But] when there is so much unused capacity and so many unemployed people hungry for work, “job-killing government spending” is oxymoronic. Virtually any type of spending, public or private, will create jobs.
The final element of silliness is… the popular notion that we need deficit reduction urgently, right now, even though the unemployment rate is still 9%…. The federal budget deficit is on an irresponsibly unsustainable path…. We need to both restrain spending and raise more revenue—and by large amounts. But not right this minute, because doing either would shrink the economy. Despite recent increases, Treasury borrowing rates remain low. There is no evidence that investors are fleeing the dollar. Our economy is still in desperate need of more demand.