Stiglitz

[Thailandnotes]

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...fix-themselves

"Obama had to save the banks, sure, but he didn’t have to save the bankers and the shareholders and the bondholders."

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Stiglitz

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...fix-themselves

"Obama had to save the banks, sure, but he didn’t have to save the bankers and the shareholders and the bondholders."

I think you will find wide agreement with that idea here at iTulip.
During and after the crisis, there were dozen of threads making that point, with much of William K Black's thinking discussed.
Bill Black thinks people should have gone broke and gone to jail.

[Woodsman]

Re: Stiglitz

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...fix-themselves

"Obama had to save the banks, sure, but he didn’t have to save the bankers and the shareholders and the bondholders."

Well the precis sounds vaguely familiar to me.

With a history of policies such as these in the background, there can be no debate about how to interpret Hillary Clinton’s defeat. While she distanced herself from these policies, she failed to provide a strong enough alternative vision to what had come before. She and her allies in the Democratic Party were seen as simply too aligned with the neo-liberal agenda, which itself was too aligned with the bankers and the comfortable elites.

The professor is correct, of course. But he goes on to insist:

Trump, remember, will fail. Technology has been advancing so fast that the number of jobs globally in manufacturing is declining. There is no way that Trump can bring significant numbers of manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

Here they go again. It's such an amazing opportunity for us to see the blind hubris of the elite at work. Not two weeks after a rip-roaring debacle where practically every single person with enough gravitas, celebrity or mere notoriety willing to address a camera, microphone or stenographer was in lock-step, monolithic agreement that Trump simply could not win and would not win.

-

Why are we even listening to these people? They're not honest brokers and have no problem contradicting themselves if the needs of the party demand it.

Stiglitz says this as if the exodus of manufacturing and the general policy of de-industrialization was some organic process that popped up out of the ground like a daisy, when in fact all of it was the result of deliberate policy advanced by both parties over decades. But in the next breath, all those things that he claims are functionally impossible for Trump to accomplish are somehow within the reach of Warren and Brown, if only they do as he suggests. Then he goes on to talk his own book of policy that can accomplish what in a previous sentence he was said was impossible:

MAKE FULL EMPLOYMENT THE GOAL

Reform monetary policy to give higher priority to full employment.

Reinvigorate public investment to lay the foundation for long-term economic performance and job growth, including by investing in large-scale infrastructure renovation: a 10-year campaign to make the U.S. a world leader in innovation, manufacturing, and jobs.

Invest in large-scale infrastructure renovation with a 10-year campaign to make the U.S. a world infrastructure innovation, manufacturing, and jobs leader.

Expand public transportation to promote equal access to jobs and opportunity

So what am I missing? This is much the same as what Trump campaigned on. Why is it impossible for Trump to bring back jobs but not Warren and Brown or some other generic Democrat, or Republican for that matter?

It's also interesting to note the donor wall of HRC supporters in the Acknowledgements page. I gotta ask, where were these people when we needed them? When the Bernman need them? Where were they? I'm talking to you Christina Roemer.

I have to ask again, why are we even listening to these people given their record of failure and duplicity? Stiglitz isn't an honest broker. This summer he was praising HRC's economic plan. He was "with Her" as were all those he acknowledges as endorsing his prescriptions. Now we're supposed to listen to him about what's possible or not for Trump. Sure.

That's not to say I don't think that many of the proposals aren't good policy. I support them too. And so, it's said, does Trump. Yes, Trump demands skepticism. But in this case, optimism costs as much as skepticism and until I see concrete evidence to the contrary, I'm doing my best to keep an open mind about what's possible or impossible. After seeing so many authorities like Prof. Stiglitz proven so spectacularly wrong, I guess it's "impossible" for Trump in the same way it was "impossible" for him to win the presidency. Meaning, that since it's impossible for folks like Prof. Stiglitz's to imagine it the rest of us poor sods should forget about it. Well those days are over, doctor. Outside the mental constructs of the neoliberal hive mind, it seems to me and many millions of others as something entirely possible and even likely if we just do the friggin' work.

The more I think about the disloyal opposition's behavior during the election and now in the aftermath, I believe the economic policy work has to begin with a parallel effort to neutralize (in a lawful manner, thanks) those individuals and institutions whose self-interest is standing in the way of recovery and restoration. I think that takes a full court press from the Trump administration and means everything from the "bully pulpit" leveraging Bannon's megaphone, to good policy and fiscal decisions, but especially a willingness to go all the way against these guys. President Trump needs to seen as a 21st Century Teddy Roosevelt; a trust buster for the new century going after the bad actors and taking the crony out of capitalism by taking out the cronies.

A guy can dream, no? But the way I see it is if there's something left to win after becoming a billionaire, after becoming president, why wouldn't a narcissist like Trump not aspire to being the next Roosevelt. And given his colossal ego, is it beyond possibility that Trump would aim to outdo both Roosevelts? We as a people might as well benefit from Trump's character defects as we would be ruined by them. Unless one is as fatalistically committed to determinism as Prof. Stiglitz and those he acknowledges have shown themselves to be. You'd think after all that's happened the idea of inevitability and historical determinism would be dry as Marx's bones by now.

What I want to see is Trump replace all of the federal prosecutors in key jurisdictions like Manhattan and especially now in the Northern district of California with law and order non-political types plucked from other districts and from the states. I'd like to see him sic them on the banksters and related fraudsters on both coasts and go after the big game using all of the law enforcement and prosecutorial power available to him. And with Google taking sides in our elections as a "for instance," it's well nigh passed time we clean house in Silicon Valley - live by partisanship, die by it. I think Trump takes down a few of the most egregious types and makes the connection to their clients in Congress and things can start to change. Put a few of these Silicon Valley and Wall Street big fish doing real time in an ass-pounding prison and trust me, the rest will follow. The swamp is much bigger than DC and if Trump does not go after the source the neoliberal Democrats and Republican's financing, they will regroup and counter-attack.

The people are ready to see perp walks and there's a target rich environment on both coasts. The way to economic recovery, in a large sense, begins by taking out those elements whose deep pockets are ultimately culpable for the corruption that has laid our people low. In almost every respect, these crony-capitalist Democrat and Republican partisans remind me of the Russian Oligarchs. And since we're all now so used to the idea of a Trump/Putin alliance (thanks DNC and media for the new McCarthyism, by the way) I'm almost hoping Soul Brother Vladimir gives The Donald a few pointers on how to cage these beasts. Because they are not done. Not by a long shot.

Who is the American Khodorkovsky or Berezovsky?

[jk]

Re: Stiglitz

manufacturing output in the u.s. is already higher than ever, but not so manufacturing employment.

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mfg1.jpg

it's not just outsourcing. stiglitz is saying, whatever the contribution of outsourcing to manufacturing employment decline, technology greatly inhibits any growth of u.s. manufacturing employment, even as manufacturing output rises. even if the factories come back, they won't provide much employment, especially with the cost of capital as low as it is. if labor is super cheap, then it may be economically preferable to forego automation. but if you pay anything close to a decent wage, automation will win out. what trump will fail at, specifically, is bringing back factory jobs.

road repair, sewer plant construction, airport construction, otoh, is less impacted by technology and provides relatively more low and moderately skilled jobs.

[Woodsman]

Re: Stiglitz

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mfg1.jpg

it's not just outsourcing. stiglitz is saying, whatever the contribution of outsourcing to manufacturing employment decline, technology greatly inhibits any growth of u.s. manufacturing employment, even as manufacturing output rises. even if the factories come back, they won't provide much employment, especially with the cost of capital as low as it is. if labor is super cheap, then it may be economically preferable to forego automation. but if you pay anything close to a decent wage, automation will win out. what trump will fail at, specifically, is bringing back factory jobs.

road repair, sewer plant construction, airport construction, otoh, is less impacted by technology and provides relatively more low and moderately skilled jobs.

That's great to know because I don't recall a myopic focus on factory jobs.

I presume President-elect Trump's economic team understands the dynamic of automation and labor in the 21st Century. And haven't you heard? Apparently we have a labor shortage.

The robot army of labor might just be the most beloved and sacred class fantasy held by the symbolic analysts that dominate the 10% (next to transhumanism). And thinking back about the history of AI, probably a techno-fantasy, too. I hate to be sacrilegious, but I admit to harboring doubts that the high priests of the app-makers and marketers and other deep-thinkers can get this one right in the next 20 years.

And if it happens they luck out, then I would suggest first building the robot army of cops and soldiers because they're going need it.

[jk]

Re: Stiglitz

tell it to these folks.

Carrier’s decision to move the factory to Monterrey, Mexico, will eliminate 1,400 jobs by 2019. Mr. Trump quickly made the factory Exhibit A in his argument against the trade policies of Republicans and Democrats alike.He cited Carrier again and again on the campaign trail, threatening to phone executives at the company and its parent, United Technologies, and to hit them with 35 percent tariffs on any furnaces and air-conditioners they imported from Mexico. To the cheers of his supporters, he predicted at rallies that Carrier would call him up as president and say, “Sir, we’ve decided to stay in the United States.”

[Woodsman]

Re: Stiglitz

tell it to these folks.

Absolutely goddman right. And to the degree he can deliver material benefits to those folks and others like them, he will be successful. Do you think Trump and his people understand that?

[jk]

Re: Stiglitz

Do you think Trump and his people understand that?

it's not clear how much trump will be captured by the ryan agenda, nor is it clear that he will make a priority of policies that might make a difference to workers such as those in the article. carrier moving to mexico would be moving to cheaper labor with new equipment. if somehow that is prevented, it would be interesting to revisit that factory in 5 years and see how many jobs remain, and how many pieces of new and even more sophistical equipment, i.e. robots, have been installed.

[Woodsman]

Re: Stiglitz

it's not clear how much trump will be captured by the ryan agenda, nor is it clear that he will make a priority of policies that might make a difference to workers such as those in the article. carrier moving to mexico would be moving to cheaper labor with new equipment. if somehow that is prevented, it would be interesting to revisit that factory in 5 years and see how many jobs remain, and how many pieces of new and even more sophistical equipment, i.e. robots, have been installed.

Seems pretty clear to you, jk.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Stiglitz

manufacturing output in the u.s. is already higher than ever, but not so manufacturing employment.

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mfg1.jpg

it's not just outsourcing. stiglitz is saying, whatever the contribution of outsourcing to manufacturing employment decline, technology greatly inhibits any growth of u.s. manufacturing employment, even as manufacturing output rises. even if the factories come back, they won't provide much employment, especially with the cost of capital as low as it is. if labor is super cheap, then it may be economically preferable to forego automation. but if you pay anything close to a decent wage, automation will win out. what trump will fail at, specifically, is bringing back factory jobs.

road repair, sewer plant construction, airport construction, otoh, is less impacted by technology and provides relatively more low and moderately skilled jobs.

Output in $ terms, not in terms of weight or gross number of items shipped. What you're seeing in that graph is pharmaceuticals etc. taking the place of real physical goods. It's not magical automation. It never took too many employees to whip up a vat of chemicals in comparison to building complex machines.


This does not tell any inherent story about cheap capital or technology or any other futurist fantasy they'd love to shove down our throats to make us hopeless that we have the legal/policy power to change things for the better. It just has to do with what we mean when we say "manufacturing" in America shifting.

It takes a lot of employees per $ still to make clothes and shoes and paper products. It takes incredibly few employees per dollar to make Viagra and Xarelto.

[Woodsman]

Re: Stiglitz

Output in $ terms, not in terms of weight or gross number of items shipped. What you're seeing in that graph is pharmaceuticals etc. taking the place of real physical goods. It's not magical automation. It never took too many employees to whip up a vat of chemicals in comparison to building complex machines.


This does not tell any inherent story about cheap capital or technology or any other futurist fantasy they'd love to shove down our throats to make us hopeless that we have the legal/policy power to change things for the better. It just has to do with what we mean when we say "manufacturing" in America shifting.

It takes a lot of employees per $ still to make clothes and shoes and paper products. It takes incredibly few employees per dollar to make Viagra and Xarelto.

"You got city hands, Mr. Hooper. You been counting money all your life."

"Here's to swimmin' with bow-legged women."

[Woodsman]

Re: Stiglitz

"Farewell and adieu to you, fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu, you ladies of Spain. For we've received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we see you again."

[Woodsman]

Re: Stiglitz

"Well it proves one thing, Mr. Hooper. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong."

[jk]

Re: Stiglitz

Output in $ terms, not in terms of weight or gross number of items shipped. What you're seeing in that graph is pharmaceuticals etc. taking the place of real physical goods. It's not magical automation. It never took too many employees to whip up a vat of chemicals in comparison to building complex machines.


This does not tell any inherent story about cheap capital or technology or any other futurist fantasy they'd love to shove down our throats to make us hopeless that we have the legal/policy power to change things for the better. It just has to do with what we mean when we say "manufacturing" in America shifting.

It takes a lot of employees per $ still to make clothes and shoes and paper products. It takes incredibly few employees per dollar to make Viagra and Xarelto.

that's an interesting observation. knowing the growth rates, though, doesn't tell us their total value by sector, i.e. growth on what base? but maybe it is that "manufacturing" growth is being driven by pharmaceuticals and... what? monsanto gmo seeds, i suppose. whatever, the sum is that u.s. manufacturing is going up the value chain to a kind of post-industrial industry. bottom line, as you say, is not a whole lot of job generation.

in the 19th century a huge part of the population was in the agriculture sector. by mid-late 20th century, very few. i think mid 20th century a huge part of the population was in the industrial sector. by mid-late 21st century, probably very few.

[jk]

Re: Stiglitz

Seems pretty clear to you, jk.

no, when i say "it's not clear" it certainly isn't clear to me. perhaps it is clear to you?