Do the Wealthy need the Middle Class?

Can the Wealthy, by Themselves, Sustain the Demand of an Economy?

Can the wealthy own too much?

Paul Krugman, back in 2008, could find:” … there’s no obvious reason why consumer demand can’t be sustained by the spending of the upper class — $200 dinners and luxury hotels create jobs, the same way that fast food dinners and Motel 6s do. “

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/do-we-need-the-middle-class/

What we are seeing today, with the combination of rising income inequality and  unemployment, is the inability of the wealthy to do this. They cannot, of themselves, provide enough demand to keep the economy at full employment.  We are also seeing it in Europe, with the economic damage inflicted by wide spread austerity.  After all, the wealthy, including many wealthy bondholders, are unable to sustain economic demand in the face of shrinking payrolls and public expenditures.

In order to sustain demand, the wealthy would have to spend almost as much as they earned, even as does much of the middle and lower class.  And they would have to spend it mostly on the productive economy, and not just on real estate and such.  That would just be the churning of existing assets, and add a minimum of jobs. And this production would necessarily involve the massive production of useless, or at least unused, artifacts. That is, this production would largely have to be economic waste. The wealthy already do the best they can to be wasteful, with their yachts and multiple mansions, luxury hotels and yes, $200 dinners, but they are already failing, and it is only going to get worse, as income becomes increasingly concentrated and mal-distributed.

Indeed, we can characterize wealth by the extravagance and wastefulness of its expenditures.  Since this extravagance represents an economic loss to the rest of the economy,  the greater the concentration of wealth and its expenditures, the greater the waste, and the poorer the economy. (So there is a tax multiplier not just on the quantity of wealth, but on the quality of its expenditures.)

The wealthy are actually poorer if they keep this wealth and income to themselves.  After all, they basically control the government, so all public goods are essentially already under their control. So the decline of infrastructure is a decline of their wealth. The only thing missing is the formal privatization of ownership. Thus the progression is not just the increased concentration of true wealth, although there is some of this, but the increased individuation of ownership of the assets of society. That is, the wealthy already hold in common the essential assets of society, including the so called public ones, if not formally then informally.  However, they seek to exploit these assets in a non-sustainable way, thus destroying the commons on which all depend.  

And because of the multiplier effect, the synergy of common effort having results greater than the sum of individual efforts, much of their own wealth depends on the perpetuation of this commons.

Consider what the rich already own.  The increased concentration of wealth can only constitute, collectively, an essential meanness among the wealthy, or, if you will, a meanness of the system, seeking to take from those who have much less, even what they have.  

We can suppose that everything is owned by the rich, and is just to service the rich.  It then comes down to how much the rich are willing to pay the help.  And the answer seems to be, among our current crop of wealthy, not much. They keep insisting on paying less. The fact is, with the economy in a shortfall of demand, even with the ability to pay more, our wealthy will not.

The further problem is that by depleting the middle class, they are also destroying the market required for  most of those individually owned assets to have a positive return.  After all, it is rich people who own fast food restaurants and Motel 6s, and from whose profits they buy their yachts. They will not profit if no one has the money for fast food restaurants, or Motel 6s. If we look at a ghetto, all of those ruined buildings were once owned by wealthy people, either for dwelling or for income.  If they cause the ghetto-ization of their world, they will not be the wealthier for it. 

Copyright Reform: A Proposal

My proposal for copyright reform:  5 years, 5 million copies, or 30 years, which ever comes second.

You have rights to your work for at least 5 years, no matter how many of your work you sell. Suppose you sell 7 million, or 70 million, in 5 years. Then at 5 years, that's the end of it.  Your work enters the public domain.

Suppose you only sell 3 million by the end of 5 years.  Your rights are extended until you sell another 2 million.  Unless that takes more than 30 years.

Suppose your work is something off beat, or scholarly, and is never going to sell 5 million copies.  Then you have the rights for 30 years. 

Good for books.  For movies?  If a movie hasn't made its money back in 5 years, it isn't going to. 



Comments?  Problems?

(Cross posted to:  http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/12/gop-fires-author-of-copyright-reform-paper.html#comments)
 

Winners and Losers in Free Trade.

It is often said, in the justifications of free trade, that there are more winners than losers.  But this is not quite what is actually the consequence of free trade.  It is more correct to say that there is more winning than losing, but this is not at all the same thing.  The winning may be concentrated among a few, while the losing could be distributed among many, in which case there would be more losers than winners.  Further, the losers could be among the less wealthy, and thus less able to afford their losses.  Is this what we are seeing in the new global economy?  The rich winning, and getting very rich, while many others are losing, and hurting? 

Inter-Generational Borrowing

Nick Rowe addresses the problem of inter-generational borrowing at:

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/12/debt-is-too-a-burden-on-our-children-unless-you-believe-in-ricardian-equivalence.html

The issue is brought up again by Dean Baker: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/children-and-grandchilden-do-not-pay-for-budget-deficits-they-get-interest-on-the-bonds

If I read Nick Rowe right, he assumes (using a toy economy based on apples,) that A: Apples don’t last.  And concludes:  B:  Each generation, in borrowing apples from their children,  consumes an increasing share of the apples produced by their children.  That is, each generation consumes more than they themselves produced, taking from the production of their children. (The second generation gives to the first, but borrows even more from the third, etc.) I think this is correct, and is Nick’s point: Inter-generational borrowing is not neutral. Succeeding generations end up short. And Dean Baker, who claims that there is no transfer of wealth with inter-generational borrowing, is wrong.

If I read this right, then the only moral position is to grow the economy at a rate greater than the increase in (real) inter-generational borrowing. ( Of course, this eventually comes up against physical limitations.) That is, plant apple trees at an increasing rate, greater than the increase in inter-generational borrowing. But this requires (it seems to me) that the present generation consumes less than they would if they hadn’t borrowed in the first place.  That is, the present generation must invest more than they borrow.   

But in terms of the present, real value, this just means the present generation should consume less than they produce, and invest the rest. The borrowing of money is irrelevant, except where it affects this. 

In fact, the borrowing of money is rather inverted, because the younger generation is forced to borrow money from the older, established, wealthier generation, pay that older generation back with interest, and thus end up with a diminished share of the  real pie. 

So this is what the government is doing.  It is the younger generation borrowing from the older, who refuse to pay their taxes, and instead consume more than they produce.   Social Security and Medicare notwithstanding,  (Who, after all, will be cheated, if Social Security and Medicare are not adequately funded in the future?) the government, in principle, represents the interests of the young. Its proper purpose is to invest in the future, which is more the younger generation's than the older.

But the government has been co-opted by the older generation, who, instead of holding it in trust, exploit it to their own profit. 

The Republicans’ stated goal, then, and that of Austerians in general, the shrinking of government, (especially those parts of government that pertain to investment,) is to cheat the young out of their interests.   This is what we are seeing in youth unemployment across the globe, so much being taken away that the younger generation is even being decapitalized.  Here in the US, it is seen as higher costs of college, and lower investment in primary education, the neglect of infrastructure, etc.  (Infrastructure is of greater benefit to  the young, since they can expect to use it longer.)

So not only is it the 1% vs the 99%, but it is the old vs the young.  

The problem for the old, of course, is that by decapitalizing the young, they are decapitalizing themselves.  Because it is on the backs of the young the old hope to take their ease.  

 Running a trade deficit is also borrowing from future generations, and is thus also immoral, unless it is done for investment.

The Poor Help Prop up the Middle Class

Push up economics:  Many conservative middle class voters are resentful of the poor, thinking them shiftless and lazy, paying no taxes and often instead collecting unjustified income from the government.  71 percent of Republicans, for instance, in a recent poll, said “they believed the poor should not be exempt from income taxes.”   Well, the poor are not ‘exempt.’   They just don’t make enough income to make it to the positive tax rate.  Do any of the middle class want to trade places with the poor?

The middle class should be grateful to the poor, and the labor they provide.  The poor often work hard, for mean wages, making a significant contribution to middle class welfare.   Also, as consumers, the poor purchase an important portion of the production of the middle class, and help keep the members of the middle class in business and employed.  Many middle class businesses, and their employees, owe their profit margins, and continuing business, to the purchases of the poor. The poor represent at least 15% of the population, and even if their purchasing power is much less, it is enough to make a difference.  And they provide other opportunities for middle class income and activity.  By cutting off supports to the poor, or by raising taxes on the poor, the middle class will do themselves no favor.  Indeed, instead, by providing more opportunity to the poor, by improving their welfare, the middle class will improve their own situation.

More money comes up to the middle class from the poor, than comes down to them from the wealthy.  Indeed, the wealthy take their profit from the middle class.

For a nice summary of some of the functions poverty and the poor serve for the rest of society,  and in particular the middle class, see Herbert J Gans:  “The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All.”: http://www.sociology.org.uk/as4p3.pdf

Private Wealth, Public Debt, and Taxes

Well, well. Over at VoxEU somebody just connected a couple of the dots:

http://www.voxeu.org/article/eurozone-crisis-time-tax-rich

“Increased levels of public debt are accompanied by mounting private wealth, which is increasingly concentrated on the wealthy elite.”

Could there be a connection?  Could the public debt increasingly be held by a wealthy elite?  Could that wealthy elite be charging their sovereigns rent for the use of the sovereigns own money, money only owed that elite in the first place because that elite have used their power over their governments to lower their own taxes?  And the governments have had to borrow to maintain their services, and now they owe that elite too much to ever repay? 

But note the key step:  The elites used their power over governments to reduce their own taxes, and forced those governments to borrow from them instead.  And now those governments owe too much, threatening the very stability of the system which supports their own wealth.  Greed, greed, greed. 

At Vox they propose a one-off tax of 10%  on the assets of the top 8% of wealth.  (The top 10%, in Germany, for instance, own 2/3 of the wealth.)  They figure it will raise 9% GDP. 

Good, but not good enough.  The entire increase in the concentration of wealth since the 1970’s has been engineered by the elites.  They should give it all back.  The top 1% share of the pie more than doubled, for instance, so they should be taxed, on average, 50% of their assets.

It’s quite remarkable.  They demand disproportionate compensation, because they are so important, and they run things.  But when you ask, who’s responsible for the increased inequality, they deny responsibility, and point the finger somewhere else:  Education, for instance.  Globalization.  

They manage the system, and the system is tottering.   They take too much out of the system for a modern economy to support.  But is it due to their mis-management and short-sighted greed? Or can we, they blame circumstances beyond their control?  Well, if they do not run things, perhaps they are paid too much.   

But we know very well who’s responsible for the financial predicament.  Our elites, and their greed.  So taxing their ill gotten gains is good for us.  And good for them.  Stave off collapse of the system, on which they, and the rest of us, depend.  Will they? Or will our elites, who purport to run things, be shortsighted to the end?  If the US elections are any indication…

Super-Majority Requirement makes for Ineffectual Government

It may be that a country with a legislature requiring a super-majority in one of its houses, (here in the US the Senate) is ungovernable.

As the minority, it is in the interests of the Republicans to oppose everything. This will cause the Democrats to be ineffectual in governing, thus increasing the likelihood of the Republicans being elected to the majority in the next election. However, should the Republicans be elected to that majority after the election, it will be in the interests of the Democrats to oppose everything the Republicans try to do.  Thus the Democrats will demonstrate the Republican's  ineffectualness at governing, and so increase the likelihood of their own eventual return to power. Irrespective of which party is in the majority, the government is ineffectual, and in a permanent state of paralysis.

Now the Democrats may see it in their interests to allow the Republicans full play of their pernicious behavior, hoping that the electorate will become aroused by the offenses visited on them, and return to the Democratic fold.   Thus bad laws would not be opposed, but good ones would be. So the country is either ungoverned, or badly governed.

We owe Mitch McConnell a note of gratitude for this lesson in political principles.

(Mostly) posted as a comment at:  http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/08/if-obama-was-for-it-we-had-to-be-against-it.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201676932b53b970b