Showing posts with label stiglitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stiglitz. Show all posts

Friday, 21 October 2016

Joseph Stiglitz proposes co-op models as an alternative to trickle-down economics

 


A changing political landscape and economic challenges mean we are witnessing “interesting” but “unsettling” times, warned economist Joseph Stiglitz at the International Summit of Cooperatives in Quebec.
The Nobel Prize laureate was a keynote speaker at the three-day conference, which brings together over 3,000 delegates from across the world to discuss the future of the co-operative economy.
A world-renowned academic, Prof Stiglitz teaches at Columbia University and has written extensively about inequality, trade agreements and the main issues affecting the world economy.
At the Summit he looked at the key challenges facing the global economy and the role of co-ops in addressing them.
He said that alongside changes in the political landscape, such as Brexit and the upcoming elections in the USA, the world faced economic issues which are beyond the control of individuals and even national governments.
“These are problems which the private sector won’t solve – partly because the private sector created these problems,” he said. “Co-ops and the social economy provide a key third pillar. That’s one of the reasons why I was particularly happy to address you this morning.”
Many countries are witnessing growing inequality which was the result of “the laws of men”, he added.
“Growing inequality is a result of how we have structured the market economy – in particular how we have restructured it in the last third of a century,” he said. “Inequality has been a choice.”
Prof Stiglitz gave the example of the USA, where the income share of the richest 1% (not including capital gains) equals that of the bottom 90%. Another aspect revealing inequality is the rise in executive pay, he added, with the salaries of chief executives rising by more than 300 times than that of the average US worker.
“If CEOs are taking a larger share of income then there is less and less for reinvestment in the company,” he warned.
Medium household income in the USA has also stayed relatively constant since 1998, he said. That year, income reached USD $58,301, while in 2015 it amounted to only USD $56,516.
He said inequality also manifested itself as a lack of access to health services, opportunities and justice. A study by economist Angus Deaton from 2015 shows that death rates have risen over the last years for white USA citizens.
This shorter life expectancy, argued Prof Stiglitz, was the result of social diseases, alcoholism, suicide and drugs – and are a sign that trickle-down economics is not working.
Financialisation has also resulted in more inequality and short term thinking, said Prof Stiglitz.
“Financial integration was supposed to lead to faster growth and more stability,” he said. “This, in turn, has economic and political consequences.
“Citizens know that the establishment has either lied to them or been totally incompetent. They feel that the economic system is rigged. They have lost trust in government and in the fairness of the political and economic system.”
What is the role of co-ops in addressing this inequality? Prof Stiglitz thinks they represent a better way of responding to the risks presented by the society.
“There are alternatives to the current system, even if some suggest there are not,” he said. “Some suggest at most we need minor tweaks on the system. But problems are deep and fundamental. Minor tweaks won’t solve it.”
He criticised economist Milton Friedman’s approach, emphasizing the pursuit personal interest which indirectly contributed to the well-being of society. He believes this “selfish” pursuit is what caused the 2008 financial crisis as well as the emissions scandal at Volkswagen.
“We should learn from co-ops,” he said. “If we do, we can reshape our economy, reshape globalisation and who we and our children are.
“These alternatives make a very big difference. I believe we can construct a world where the economy performs better for all, based on solidarity”.
Joining a panel discussion on the future of the global economy, Prof Stiglitz also raised concerns over using GDP as a measure for social well-being.
“Some governments cut down on social security to grow GDP,” he said, “but the really important aspect is well-being. People actually feel better when they co-operate rather than being selfish.”
Prof Stiglitz predicts that the co-operative model will take a larger share of the economy in some countries.
“There is going to be volatility, and co-ops are better able to manage risks than the private sector,” he said, adding that the Democratic US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, was sympathetic to the idea of having more worker voice and participation in enterprises. Prof Stiglitz is an adviser to Ms Clinton.
Another panellist, Jean-Yves Duclos, Canada’s Minister of Family, Children and Social Development, agreed that co-operatives could help promote inclusiveness and build a stronger democracy. He sees co-ops as particularly important actors in meeting the housing needs of Canadians.
Asked how much co-operatives could achieve while surviving in competitive markets, Prof Stiglitz warned that they “cannot ignore the laws of the economy”.
By not wanting to take advantage of customers, co-ops ran the risk of being at a disadvantage, he said.
“It’s essential to have good government regulation to prevent an un-level playing field,” he added.
Another challenge is that large corporations are often those making legislation and regulations. Large corporations represented in international organisations such as the B20 often argue for particular frameworks, and Prof Stiglitz thinks that giving representation for co-ops on these platforms will address this issue.
“The rules of the game are being set by those who are at the table, for their own interest,” he said, “so it’s very important to have the co-op movement there as a reminder to big corporations about the dangers of excessive selfishness – and to keep the idea that there are alternative forms of organisation that ought to be discussed, that isn’t just the issue of government vs private sector.”
  • For more of our coverage of the International Summit of Co-operatives, visit thenews.coop/summit.

Wednesday, 24 April 2013

Big thinkers still stumped on global economic crisis



 


cat in tree Like a cat stuck up a tree, economists say they have no idea how to rescue the global economy


Related Stories


More than five years after the onset of the financial crisis, you might have thought economic policy makers would know what to do next.

Well they don't. Or at the very least, there is nothing like the kind of consensus that prevailed before the financial crisis.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been hosting a conference on rethinking economic policy, organised by four experts in the area, including the IMF's own chief economist.

One of the other organisers - the Nobel Prize winner George Akerlof of the University of California - had a vivid analogy for the state of uncertainty the economics profession now faces.

"It's as if a cat has climbed this huge tree - the cat of course is this huge crisis. My view is 'oh my God the cat's going to fall and I don't know what to do'."

Another one of the organisers, David Romer also of the University of California, picked up the analogy: "The cat's been up the tree for five years. It's time to get the cat down from the tree and make sure it doesn't go back up."

The trouble for the economics profession is, according to the last of the conference hosts and another Nobel Prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz: "There is no good economic theory that explains why the cat is still up the tree".
Changed world
No more cats I promise. But the analogy give a sense of the degree of uncertainty this stellar gathering of economists grappled with.

Joseph Stiglitz Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz says there is no theory to explain the ongoing economic crisis

It is a very different world from the apparently more comfortable one we lived in before the crisis.

What were the key features of that world?

The main economic policy tool was in the hands of central banks. They set interest rates, raising them to keep inflation low and cutting them when the economy was weak.

Fiscal policy - government spending and taxation - was no longer seen as part of the routine toolkit for keeping the economy on an even keel.

Financial regulation was for the most part relatively light touch.

What we got was the worst financial crisis and the deepest recession for the wider economy since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

For Joseph Stiglitz, the crisis was evidence for his view that "economies are not necessarily stable or self-correcting".

There was quite a lot of support for that kind of view and for the idea that various state agencies have an important role in doing something about it.

Many favoured more financial regulation, especially measures that are intended to help stabilise the whole financial system rather than individual banks.

 

"We don't have a sense of our final destination… Where we end I really don't have much of a clue."”
 

Olivier Blanchard IMF chief economist
 
 
 

If you really want to know, it's called macro-prudential policy and it's an idea that has really built up a head of steam in the last few years.

One example is a limit on the size of loans relative to the price of the asset such as a house that it's used to buy - the loan-to-value ratio.

It sounds like a reasonable idea, but there was acknowledgement that these policies and their effects are not well understood.

And David Romer, one of the organisers, didn't think he had heard anything big enough to produce a really robust financial system.

Then there is monetary policy. Before the crisis the main tool was interest rates, but the toolkit has since expanded to include quantitative easing - shovelling money into the financial system hoping it will stimulate more spending.

There was support for that but it wasn't universal.
'Not a clue'
Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania for one thought it was a huge amount of stimulus with very little effect.

printing money Academics are divided on the merits of economic stimulus

There is also a debate about what should be the aim of monetary policy.

The idea of inflation targets gained widespread acceptance ahead of the crisis.

Now there is a debate about whether that's enough, but there was no consensus on whether change is needed.

David Romer said the approach seemed good for 15 or 20 years, but subsequently showed itself incapable of generating enough demand in the economy.

But Stefan Gerlach of Goethe University in Frankfurt argued that "it doesn't really make sense to rethink the entire monetary policy framework for an event that happens about once in a century".

There was no great enthusiasm for the rapid increase in government debt in the rich countries over the last few years, but few would go as far as the conservative view of Allan Meltzer:

"If we want financial stability, economic stability and other good things don't we begin by restricting budget deficits? Formally, indefinitely and for all future time?"

Which leaves us where? Confused? You are not the only one.

There were plenty of ideas for sure. But this is how the IMF's chief economist Olivier Blanchard put it at the end of the conference:

"We don't have a sense of our final destination… Where we end I really don't have much of a clue."

That may be disconcerting, but then the crisis has been an enormous jolt to economic policy, and it would perhaps be even more unsettling if there weren't some fundamental rethinking going on.