Is the US hypocritical to Criticize Russian Election Meddling?

By Thomas Palley

Thomas Carothers has recently written an article in Foreign Affairs, the prestigious elite journal published by the US based Council on Foreign Relations. The article asks is the US hypocritical for criticizing Russian election medlling?

Given the place of publication, the unsurprising conclusion is it is not. The problem is the US is a champion meddler. Consequently, the argument crumbles every time Mr. Carothers reaches for substance.

At the end of the day, the defense reduces to the claim that we (the US) are good and they are evil, so that our meddling is a net good and theirs bad: “the trends of US and Russian behavior are divergent, not convergent – with Russia on the negative side of the divide.”

That is a moral superiority defense which is doubly flawed. First, the US can still be a hypocrite. Second, framing great power international relations in terms of moral superiority quickly promotes crusader thinking, which is a grave menace to all.

Read rest here.

On the blogs

U.S.-China Relations in the Age of Trump-- An old post by James Fallows, from December 2016, but that I think makes sense to re-read now, after the trade wars with China have been really ignited. Btw, I also recommend Fallows last book, which was on China;

Managing Debt Vulnerabilities in Low-Income and Developing Countries-- Tao Zhang at IMF blog on debt vulnerability in developing countries. I wouldn't read too much on their preoccupations, and not even sure they know what the dangers are

Rethinking macroeconomics-- Martin Sandbu on the series of papers published by the Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Not very fond of the exercise which follows Blanchard's don't throw the water with the baby approach (meaning keep the natural rate hypothesis)

When Things Don't Fall Apart by Ilene Grabel

Ilene Grabel's new book, When Things Don't Fall Apart: Global Financial Governance and Developmental Finance in an Age of Productive Incoherence, is out. From Dani Rodrik’s Foreword:

“It happens only rarely and is all the more pleasurable because of it. You pick up a manuscript that fundamentally changes the way you look at certain things. This is one such book. Ilene Grabel has produced a daring and delightful reinterpretation of developments in global finance since the Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998.”

From the jack description:

In When Things Don’t Fall Apart, Ilene Grabel challenges the dominant view that the global financial crisis had little effect on global financial governance and developmental finance. Grabel’s chief positive claim is that the global crisis induced disconnected and ad hoc discontinuities in global financial governance and developmental finance that are now having profound effects on emerging market and developing economies. Most observers have failed to appreciate this phenomenon owing to a heroic narrative of social change that discounts all but grand, systemic ruptures in institutions and policy. The chief normative claim is that the resulting incoherence in global financial governance is productive rather than debilitating. In the age of productive incoherence a more complex, dense, fragmented, and pluripolar form of global financial governance is expanding possibilities for policy and institutional experimentation, policy space for economic and human development, financial stability and resilience, and financial inclusion. Grabel draws on key theoretical commitments of Albert Hirschman to cement the case for the productivity of incoherence. Inspired by Hirschman, Grabel demonstrates that meaningful change often emerges from disconnected, erratic, experimental, and inconsistent adjustments in institutions and policies as actors pragmatically manage in an evolving world. Grabel substantiates her claims with empirically-rich case studies that explore the effects of recent crises on established and new networks of financial governance (such as the G-20); transformations within the IMF; institutional innovations in liquidity support and project finance from the national to the transregional levels; and the “rebranding” of capital controls. Grabel concludes with careful examination of the opportunities and risks associated with the evolutionary transformations underway.

The book has been endorsed by Antonio Ocampo, Jayati Ghosh, Ha-Joon Chang, and Mark Blyth. It's a must if you're interested in the changes in the post-Bretton Woods financial architecture after the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.

On the blogs

A response to David Laidler’s review of Macroeconomics and the Phillips curve myth-- James Forder on the arguments of his book on the Phillips Curve

What to Watch on Jobs Day: Putting wage growth in perspective-- Elise Gould on a paper on wage stagnation

Outburst of conventional wisdom on trade merits caution-- Greg Hannsgen on the recent steel tariffs

GDP growth in Latin America

Writing a paper on Latin America. Nothing particularly relevant to report. I was just checking the date. Many sources to get the data. I suggest both the World Bank Development Indicators and the Conference Board Total Economic Database. At any rate, below GDP growth from the Golden Age (after the Korean War and up to Debt crisis) to the Neoliberal Era (starting in the 1990s).

Clearly growth has been more volatile and at lower rates. So much for the notion that Neoliberalism works.

Classical Political Economics and the History of Central Banks

As promised not long ago, here a short paper on the history of central banks presented at ASSA meeting in Philadelphia. The paper is short, given the submission policy. It discusses the growing literature on the origins of central banks, and essentially disagrees with Charles Goodhart, who is the authority on the topic.

The conventional argument is that central banks only become effectively central banks in the late 19th century when a concern with financial stability was developed and the function of Lender of Last Resort (LOLR) was more formally established. The notion is that up to that point central banks were essentially concerned with profit making, as private institutions, and that only when a concern with financial stability as a public good was developed is that they can be seen truly as public institutions (even if they remained private).

Implicit in this view is also the notion that central banks would have a tendency to overissue paper money, in times of booms, which would help their profitability, and that constraining that ability, but at the same time allowing them to act as LOLR was central for financial stability. The first part of the argument, the notion that inflation is caused by the overissue of paper money, derives from the Bullionist controversies and the Bank Charter Act of 1844.

The point of the paper is that early public banks (essentially Italian and Dutch banks that preceded the the Swedish and English central banks) were central banks because they did have a public concern considerably before than their LOLR function was developed. They were fiscal agents of the state concerned with providing a stable unit of account and a secondary market for public debt allowing the expansion of the State.

The paper tries, in that sense, to connect the discussion of the origins of central banks with the extensive literature on the Fiscal-Military State and its relevance for the process of capitalist development.

On the blogs

Trying to resurrect my brief look at blogs during weekends. So here are three post/entries/op-ped pieces worth reading (look at this space for three or four of these every Sunday):

Will bourgeoisie ever rule the Chinese state?-- Branko Milanovic on Arrighi's question. Funny thing is this weekend I was re-reading Adam Smith in Beijing, since I'm giving one of the keynote speeches at the Political Economy of World Systems (PEWS) meeting in April at Fairfield University (the other being Immanuel Wallerstein. Btw, looking at my notes on the side of the book, I seemed to complain back then (bought the book in 2009 in NY) the absence of a discussion of the Fiscal-Military State in Arrighi.

Trump's steel tariffs are mere political theater-- James Galbraith's piece on The Guardian. More or less like mine suggests that the effects will be small (he doesn't suggest that free trade is good, as others on the left) and that the reasons are essentially political (the special election in PA). I was thinking more long term, but along the same lines here.

The PowerPoint Philosophe-- David Bell debunking Steven Pinker’s new book on Enlightenment Now, his latest Panglossian pamphlet about how we do live in the best of all possibles worlds.

Basil Moore (1933-2018)

Basil Moore

I first met Basil in 2000 or 2001, which was quite late, since I've read his work as an undergraduate back in the late 1980s. I was Assistant Director of the Center for Economic Policy Analysis (CEPA, now the Schwartz Center) at the New  School, and we invited him for a talk, which was about his forthcoming (at that time) book Shaking the Invisible Hand: Complexity, Endogenous Money and Exogenous Interest Rates  which was published considerably later (my review here).

Basil came down from Wesleyan, were he was for most of his career before retiring to South Africa, and we had an interesting debate on the relevance of the Keynesian (not the monetary one, on that we agreed) multiplier, which he considered a mistake, and on dollarization, which, at least at the time, he favored. The biggest surprise in my conversations with him that day and after that was what seemed to be a lack of understanding of how much the mainstream had incorporated the notion of endogenous money, in Wicksellian fashion. And I should note that the mainstream has not acknowledged the relevance of Post Keynesians, like Basil, in pushing them into the endogenous money camp.

My debates with him showed how much Post Keynesians could disagree both on theoretical and policy issues, and dispelled any notion that this was a group with monolithic or closed views on economic issues. In fact, it suggests that Posties should be seen more as a collection of schools, that depart from some aspects of marginalism/neoclassical economics.

Basil's contributions were essentially associated to the notion of endogenous money, more in line with the Kaldorian tradition, in which central banks accommodate to money demand, than to the Minskian notion of financial innovation. He was, together with Paul Davidson, Alfred Eichner, Hyman Minsky and Sidney Weintraub a key founding member of the American Post Keynesian School, perhaps less recognized than the others, and being the most focused on a particular topic. I'm sure that many obituaries will discuss his contributions in depth. At any rate, a loss for the profession, and for those of us that enjoyed his pluralistic openness to alternative views.

Andrea Ginzburg and Anthony Brewer

These were two great economists, that I never met, and that sadly have passed away. I would recommend this paper by Andrea Ginzburg, with Annamaria Simonazzi, on foreign debt cycles, and this paper by Anthony Brewer on the effects of capital mobility on the Ricardian comparative advantage model. Their contributions are certainly much more relevant than these two papers, but I think this provide a good example.

The left and the return of protectionism

So if you believe a simplified version of conservative views on the economy, Trumponomics is pretty contradictory (and yes they are contradictory, even if one may doubts about why). Tax cuts should lead to growth, via supply side economics, and the recently proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum do exactly the opposite. Protectionism (not a very good name, I prefer managed trade, as I discussed here before) has made a come back, but while many heterodox economists have suggested that 'free trade' is not always beneficial to all, and those concerned with the fate of manufacturing and the working class in the United States have decried Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) over the years, it seems that the association of these ideas with Trumponomics has made them less keen on the recent tariff proposal.

A typical example is the recent op-ed by Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker in WAPO, and I cite them exactly for my respect for their economic views in general, and their commitment to progressive causes. In their view: "The bigger dangers to our economy are twofold. One, that our trading partners will retaliate by taxing our exports to them, thus hurting a broad swath of our exporting industries, and two, by leading an emboldened, reckless Trump administration to enact more bad trade policy." Essentially, they agree that tariffs would have a negative effect on employment, but perhaps not as big as some Cassandras have suggested, and that this 'bad protectionist' policies would continue. A similar argument can be found in Brad DeLong's op-ed, another progressive economist, in which he argues that the tariff is a tax hike for consumers. Brad, I should note, has recently published a very good book in which he praises the Hamiltonian system, that is,  the use of managed trade to promote industrial development (I discussed it here).*

It's worth remembering that while on other issues Trumponomics is essentially Reaganomics (low taxes for the wealthy and increased military spending), on trade his views are a break with more recent Republican positions (and hence the push back in his own party against the tariffs) and closer to what many Dems, particularly those connected with trade unions, often defended. He has not signed TPP, has really started renegotiating NAFTA (something Obama promised to do as a candidate, but did not deliver as president) and now has imposed some tariffs (like, btw, Bush, so I'm not suggesting this is unprecedented; just that he has been more consistent on this topic).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of Trumponomics, or even in particular of these tariffs. And this will not work probably, but the reasons are not the ones adduced by progressives. Their basic argument is that retaliation by other countries will make them innocuous. In all fairness, the US is already more 'protectionism' (manages trade) than most people understand. The ability to use trade treaties and organizations for defending the country's own advantage is considerably tilted in favor of advanced economies and their corporations that can use loopholes to creatively avoid rules and continue to subsidize their industries (and agricultural sector). The US use of the defense department, again used by Trump, is typical. Poor countries some times lack the basic technical capabilities (lawyers and economists) to face the trade teams of advanced economies. The complexity of the WTO dispute settlement process, the geopolitical role of the US and the importance of US markets for many developing countries render it a very ineffective tool for the interests of less developed economies.

It should not be a surprise that American corporations continue to thrive in international trade (it's the American working class that is in trouble). Manufacturing is doing well, with the support of what Fred Block has termed the hidden developmental state in the US. So the problem is not that tariffs could not work. In all fairness, tariffs together with significant expansion of domestic spending on infrastructure (and more steel demand), with a vigorous defense of trade unions, with higher minimum wages, with policies to improve income distribution, like progressive taxes on the wealthy, to strengthen the domestic market might actually be part of a Hamiltonian strategy of economic growth. Note also that the whole point of imposing tariffs is to depend less on exports and more on domestic markets, so that to some extent retaliation should matter less. A more closed (not closed, but more so, like Keynes suggested in his National Self-Sufficiency piece of 1933) international economic order, to role back of some of the excesses of the neoliberal, pro-corporate globalization process, used to be be, and should be, on the agenda of the left.

The problem, then is less the tariffs per se, and more the fact that the Trumpian agenda is empty, and has nothing for the working class. That was my biggest concern reading the progressive economists complaints about Trump's trade views. Their solutions are to stop protecting patents and professionals, that is more 'free trade,' and a more depreciated currency (I'll leave my skepticism about this one for another post, at any rate I discussed this before). While I'm more sympathetic to the skepticism on property rights, note that China, in part, thrives, exactly because they do explicitly infringe the rules on patents (the first Geely car was a knock off of a Mercedes, and they bought Volvo to have access to foreign technology; there are many examples; it's worth noticing that the US did that in the past too). That would not necessarily be good for American corporations. To weaken doctors, lawyers and other middle (and upper middle) class professionals is certainly not the way out of the hole for the American working class.

The political danger of these views, which I think still dominate the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, is considerable. I think, that even if his policies turn out not to be very helpful (for the reasons I outlined, meaning lower wages and protections for workers, lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations and so on) his true dislike of globalization and free trade policies would strengthen his position with working people in the Rust Belt, which were central for his victory (maybe you think it was Russia... oh, well). As I noticed before the election, this would make things so much hard for Dems in elections. I said back in September 2016 that: "Note that this doesn't mean he [Trump] is going to win the election. Demographic changes make it harder for Republicans to win now, since Dems get more of the electoral college to start with. And I hope he doesn't, btw. But there are good reasons to be afraid. This is going to be way closer than it should be." And so it was.

I'm afraid that his trade policies, and the Dems position that effectively are to his right (like Hillary, but not Bernie) would make it more likely (hopefully not enough) for a longer period of Trumponomics than it is acceptable. This suggests that a good chunk of Dems are stuck in the model that Mark Lilla has referred to as identity liberalism (see his book here), and have become vulnerable to right wing populism. It's getting increasingly difficult to have hope in the dark.

PS: For discussions of trade policy see this two previous entries which provide a simple discussion of the Ricardian and neoclassical models of trade and its limitations. I would also recommend the paper by Robert Wade linked here.

* There are many others that have written on this in the last couple of days. Paul Krugman could, arguably enter the list of progressives here, but he has been consistently more of a free trade guy. Krugman complain is more macro than the others. In his view, the Fed would hike rates, since we are close enough to full employment and any additional gains from the tariffs will be eroded, even without retaliation from other countries. In part, that would happen because higher interest rates would lead to inflows and an appreciation of the dollar (see here).

The Godley-Tobin Lecture by James K. Galbraith

Presenting the Lecture

Here is the audio file of Jamie Galbraith inaugural Godley-Tobin Lecture. Due to the weather he recorded the lecture before hand. The paper will appear in the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE) soon. Jamie presents a macro discussion of income distribution, which he correctly points out has been absent from most discussion of inequality in recent times.

Further, he connects his concern with the data (the UNIDO data that his team at UTIP has worked on for years now) to Wynne Godley's preoccupation with data consistency and accuracy. He also noted that James Tobin's preoccupation with the role of monetary variables, which Wynne certainly admired, is central to understand global inequality. We were very happy to have Jamie give the inaugural lecture, not just because we expected a great presentation, but more importantly because having interacted with both Godley, at the Levy, and with Tobin, at Yale and while he was in the staff at the US Congress, he was in a unique position to provide a thoughtful evaluation of their importance for what I referred (following Wynne) non-hyphenated Keynesianism to the understanding of economics.

Theotônio dos Santos (1936-2018)

Theotônio dos Santos, one of the main authors of the Latin American Dependency School, has passed away. I had some minimal contact with him, seeing some of his talks as an undergraduate, and then at a few conferences were we could talk a bit more, including after I had published this paper.

When I was a student, I might add, I was basically taught that there were two dependency school traditions, and often the Marxist one, in which Theotônio and André Gunder Frank were the key figures, was seen, at my alma mater (the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) at least, as the lesser one, with the Structuralist school, of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, being the 'good' one. In retrospect, given the political views (and some of the economic views too) that Cardoso came to defend from the late 1980s onwards, with his adherence to Neoliberalism, I must conclude that my teachers might have been wrong.

An obituary in Portuguese here.

The inaugural Godley – Tobin Memorial Lecture

The inaugural Godley – Tobin Memorial Lecture at the Eastern Economic Association meetings in Boston on Saturday March 3, 11.30am – 12.50pm. The lecture pays tribute to both Godley and Tobin's emphasis on being non-hyphenated Keynesians (more on that for a later post).

The lecture is sponsored by the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE) and will be delivered by Professor James K. Galbraith, whose talk is titled “A global macroeconomics – Yes, macroeconomics damn it – of inequality and income distribution.”

It will be held in Gardner A & B of the Boston Sheraton. If you are attending the EEA meetings, I hope you will attend.