Fun as it is to imagine a worker takeover of the industry-leading (and most infuriating) ride-hailing app company, for a host of reasons, it’s a pipe dream that misses the forest for the trees.
The number one way in which humans contribute to global warming is not mentioned in Showtime’s groundbreaking “Years of Living Dangerously”. Not even when repeatedly highlighting the impacts of climate change on the very industry and way of life causing the lion’s share of warming.
Two more financial elites join the ranks of those rearranging the deck chairs on the proverbial Titanic that is capitalism. Watch in awe as they execsplain how capitalists can save their beloved system from itself, and the world along with it, but only in order to save itself.
Innovation leads to automation of more complex work, threatening higher-paid jobs more than the traditionally automated rote tasks. Unless you can outthink computers, the robots are coming for you, and the onus will be on you to demonstrate your value.
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff exhibits a remarkable ability to see what’s wrong with capitalism and markets, while simultaneously astounding with his capacity to not consider these problems to be fundamental deal breakers.
I love squatters. Thought to be fading into history as a self-conscious class, these intrepid refuseniks have not made much news for the past decade or thereabout. So when a friend sent me a link to a Time/Moneyland story about a new breed of squatters, I couldn’t wait to see what they were up to.
Despite being ridiculously titled “Is America Becoming a Nation of Squatters?” (hyperbole much?), the piece by Tara-Nicholle Nelson starts off good, introducing the phenomenon of squatting and the seemingly anomalous legal concept known as “adverse possession”, a doctrine under which in some states squatters can acquire legal title to real property simply by residing on it without permission for a certain period of years (usually ten). This is interesting stuff, and over the generations, lots of housing activists have made the case that squatting is a valuable social phenomenon. (Not a hard case to make, given that people need housing and so much of it is vacant.)
Nelson then introduces a “new class of squatters” — homeowners who default on their mortgages but stay in their houses. This is not exactly a social movement, and it’s kind of a no-brainer (if you’re broke but not yet being physically forced out of the structure you call “home”, where all your stuff is… why would you leave?), but it’s an interesting socioeconomic phenomenon, if you will.
What really threw me for a loop was the writer’s conclusion. I honestly did not see it coming. Nelson — notably a lawyer and a real-estate broker — suggests that this “squatting” phenomenon may be adversely affecting the housing market because it could taint Americans’ attitudes toward what she calls “the inherent rightness of paying for the right to live in a place”.
WOW! What a phrase, and what an overarching idea.
My objections are manifold. First, people cheerleading for housing values to rise again need to sit in the corner wearing a “real-estate agent” dunce cap. Second, people who suggest rights can be bought should sit in the corner with a “lawyer” dunce cap on. Third, get real — there is (unfortunately) no real “threat” of an attitude shift toward access to real property. Fourth, even if there were such a prospect, its impact would probably be immeasurably small, given that it would come up against the reality of how property is treated in our society. And it would only serve to anchor housing prices in ways that aren’t all bad.
Let’s take the philosophical point first and dispense with this notion that one can purchase rights. There is sadly no right to housing in this country. One can purchase the legal prerogative to occupy a dwelling either by obtaining deed or lease. Otherwise, with few exceptions, one has no expectation of any legal or even philosophical right to shelter. Overturning this would be a good thing; maybe not for the real estate market, depending on how it was implemented, but definitely a win for the human condition.
On to the threat of an attitudinal shift anchoring the housing market, which Nelson considers unhealthy. She writes:
I suspect this harm will manifest most evidently in consumers’ mindsets, as widespread squatting threatens to upend basic, important social beliefs about the inherent rightness of paying for the right to live in a place. If consumers perceive that a primary advantage of being a homeowner is that you can stick around for years without making a payment, strategic default and foreclosure rates might never decline back to their pre-recession rarity.
[…] The real danger is to our social norms and financial belief systems which, in turn, threaten a lasting recovery and future prosperity.
Economic recovery and (material) prosperity are indeed tied to the housing market. When the housing bubble predictably burst in 2008, the consumer credit system took a massive hit. Our economy is 70% consumer-driven. It depends on growth, and growth depends on credit. So while the stagnant housing market is probably (for now) holding back severe inflation as the Fed pushes a credit- and government-spending-based recovery dependent on an increased currency/reserves supply, that same moribund market is holding back the real flow of consumer credit. This everybody acknowledges.
Where onlookers differ is in the real social quality of this anchoring effect. First, the more affordable housing is, the better off society is, generally speaking. That’s not an economistic view — it’s just another of my pesky humanistic views. If our economic system gave a damn about sheltering Americans, we would be happy to see a gentler rate of increase in housing costs.
But besides this, holding back growth in a society that has too much housing (however misallocated) and too much consumption in terms of resource use and pollution/greenhouse-gas output, is not in and of itself a bad thing. An economic system that causes suffering when aggregate production contracts or even slows will tempt all of us to cheer for growth. But growth has severe consequences; it is not inherently good. The cost of ameliorating present economic misery for working and unemployed Americans may build in too many problems associated with overconsumption. These will hurt down the road. Severely.
The housing market needs never to return to unsustainable growth. It is amazing that this has to be said in a post-burst world, but apparently some people haven’t figured it out, including self-interested homeowners and real-estate brokers. As long as credit is made readily available and energy costs are artificially low (as they do not include the real environmental and social costs of hydrocarbon-based production and consumption), there will be a tendency for real estate prices to bubble, not just threatening sudden harm to the economy again, but also excluding poor people from decent housing.
This is why the notion that attitudes of entitlement to housing will hurt the market is absurd. First, this attitude isn’t going to come about by some spontaneous collective realization. It would take an organized social movement to reevaluate the concept of housing as a right (that can’t be purchased).
Besides, the market has too many systemic upward pressures; nuances that tamp it down have an upside, even if it really sucks for people who made poor real-estate investment choices in the last decade. We really don’t want to reinflate the bubble just to give those bad investments new life and prop up the credit-based overconsumption frenzy that put us in this sad state to begin with.
Now back to philosophy for a moment. This is just my own belief, to counter Nelson’s appreciation for the idea that people should pay market prices for the “right” to occupy a home. Shelter is a human right, and anyone who contributes to society should have comparable access to stable, secure, desirable housing. Shattering arcane notions that a suitable home is a privilege one must purchase would be good not just in terms of anchoring the housing market, but to transform this society into a halfway decent alternative.
Cartoon by Carol Simpson.
Even when the US economy is technically “growing”, it is not “recovering” in any meaningful sense of the word. Aggregate demand is down, unemployment shows no real signs of improvement, and the most productive workers in the world go unrewarded (or really penalized).
Robert J. Gordon’s keen analysis of the latest figures puts this all into perspective. The key findings here, for those mainly interested in the human impact of economics, are that corporate management has favored cutting jobs over other strategies for surviving the economic downturn since ’08. This hypothesis isn’t new, but these figures offer a pretty good illustration of just how it came about, the effect it has had, and why it persists.
When the economy begins to sink […] firms begin to cut costs any way they can; tossing employees overboard is the most direct way. For every worker tossed overboard in a sinking economy prior to 1986, about 1.5 are now tossed overboard. […] My “disposable worker hypothesis” […] attributes this shift of behaviour to a complementary set of factors that amount to “workers are weak and management is strong.” The weakened bargaining position of workers is explained by the same set of four factors that underlie higher inequality among the bottom 90% of the American income distribution since the 1970s – weaker unions, a lower real minimum wage, competition from imports, and competition from low-skilled immigrants.
Gordon has been saying this for a while, so I’m eager to see if anyone can make a case that his latest analysis is somehow skewed to uphold earlier conclusions… or if he’s just been right all along.
Gordon’s analysis also demonstrates why aggregate demand and jobs have not recovered with growth. The technical causes are interesting (a “double hangover” effect rooted in the housing market — excess housing supply and excess consumer debt), but still it is the distinctly social factor of his findings that are most relevant, to my mind.
A change in labour market dynamics accounts for about 3 million of the over 10 million missing jobs in mid-2011. This shift can be traced to weakness of labour and growing assertiveness of management.
Now, if you’re thinking, “How can this be good for the capitalists in the long run?” — you’ve got a great point. In favor of fattening their short-term coffers, capitalism’s decision-makers are taking a huge bite out of domestic consumer demand, and this has an inevitable positive-feedback effect (that’s bad in this case) on the economy and thus private-sector revenues, not to mention government revenues.
This is just another failing of capitalism — it permits elites with inordinate power to make decisions that hurt working people and the economy overall, and even probably hurt themselves in the long run. Sure, capitalism allows them to not act irresponsibly, but given the nature of humans with elitist attitudes*, irresponsibility is what is to be expected, and there is no averting it without massive intervention against market forces — which won’t happen because Guess Who decides when and where the government intervenes.
* I won’t call it “human nature”, because it could be a self-selecting special “breed” that behaves this way; though I could be wrong, we’ll never find out, since capitalism will only ever allow the disproportionately greedy among us to be tested vis a vis how they prioritize constituents when setting major business policy.
Cartoon by Carol Simpson.
Writing for the New Economic Foundation blog, Josh Ryan-Collins encourages us to “stay angry” at the tiny group of powerful Americans CitiGroup says enjoy the special status of “plutonomy” — you know, the people who matter.
Citigroup believed that we had moved in to a new kind of macro-economy, where growth was primarily driven by the rich and enjoyed by the rich. Everyone else was fairly irrelevant, as was the global imbalance in trade between the US and everyone else and the strength of the dollar. The fact that inequality was massively widening was not seen as a big issue – the important thing was to keep the rich and their stocks, getting richer.
Ryan-Collins is referring to the content of two leaked reports that should have been more widely embarrassing for Citigroup. It probably helps that Citi’s brands/subsidiaries advertise widely in American news media, or we might have seen more from the troublingly candid document.
In “The Summer of Discontent“, Molano cuts straight to the nitty gritty, squarely placing blame for the past year’s various grassroots grumblings (China labor tension, Arab Spring, London riots) on the shoulders of market capitalism — namely, its failed promise. And he doesn’t try to sugar coat it or tack on a hackneyed stupefaction proclaiming capitalism will make it all right.
Molano basically illustrates how the global game of musical chairs that was played for the last twenty years as new markets opened up and capital flooded in has, in the end, left much of the world standing, disgruntled. It’s a short piece (with dreadful paragraphing), but let me share some highlights:
The growth spurt driven by globalization expanded the economic pie, as billions of new consumers were incorporated into the marketplace. Rising commodity prices and expanding trade flows delivered huge windfalls to the developed and developing world. However, as the rapid rise of global integration began to plateau, and the effects of the downturn in the U.S. and Europe took hold, the vast aspirations of disparate societies dimmed. Not only is the American dream looking like an empty promise and the European socialist model a distant memory, the hopes for a better way of life by billions of people across the developing world is also in doubt.
It’s hard to argue with this, adding to the account that everyday people in the “developed and developing world” did not accrue benefits equitably from the windfalls, which Molano fully understands. An investment analyst has captured the spirit of the street, and he’s going to tie it into useful, plain-English macroeconomic analysis. Observe…
The mad scramble for productive and physical assets throughout the former communist states, such as Russia, China and Vietnam, created a cadre of super-rich individuals. However, the re-allocation process is over and most of the boundless opportunities are gone. Now, these populations are stratifying into the traditional class segmentations associated with modern capitalist societies, fostering disappointment and frustration for some.
Molano then actually presents a Marxist framework within which to understand the impact these changes on class in countries his colleagues typically refer to as “emerging markets” (Molano spares us this dreadful term). I actually found this to be the weakest aspect of the piece, as Molano is trying to wedge modern concepts into an arcane (if historically useful) model. Nevertheless, it’s interesting.
But Molano’s commentary isn’t done getting better (i.e., franker). I’m going to make you read his piece for the details, though.
I can’t help sharing his conclusion with you just in case you don’t take the hint and read the original:
The blurry images of the violence in London, Hama and Hangzhou are the precursors of similar events that will take place in other parts of the world, such as Istanbul, Jakarta and Bogota, when they realize that the dream of greater prosperity was dashed by the basic principles of market economics.
I’m not familiar with Molano’s prior work, so I don’t know what the rest of his take on capitalism is. His job title suggests he’s okay with taking advantage of it, but unlike many of his contemporaries examining the current hyper-crisis of capitalism, he seems to have some genuine understanding of if not sympathy for the people economics impacts most: workers (and the unemployed). His lens is still familiar to those of us who read economists and analysts speaking to an elite audience of investors, but he focuses it in a way Roubini and Jeremy Grantham don’t seem willing or able to. Not revolutionary, but kind of refreshing. Why can’t this become a trend?
It never ceases to amaze me how disconnected, or just plain unconcerned, the privileged can be when it comes to worrying about the future of the world. Believing they’re safe from the worst pains of anthropogenic climate change and contrived resource scarcity, their main concern tends to be how they are going to continue to grow their personal wealth when the shit hits the fan…
Long-term business analyst Jeremy Grantham has been noticed recently for what some see as economistic doomsday predictions, usually in the form of open “letters” to the investor class. In these communiques, Grantham says the same thing progressive economists and scientists have been saying for decades, citing roughly the same evidence (if far less of it!) and drawing essentially the same mid-term conclusions, with updated numbers. But Grantham has credibility because he’s not remotely radical, or really even progressive — he’s a late-to-the-game mainstream financial analyst… and more importantly, he’s got the interests of elites in mind, which means the New York Times will perk its ears up and give unconventional observations the kind of attention only a Magazine feature profile can provide.
Grantham and some fanboys drive the conversation of an August 11 NYTM piece titled “Can Jeremy Grantham Profit From Ecological Mayhem?” In a way only the extraordinarily privileged could swallow with a straight face, source after source lavishes Grantham with praise for looking out for the vulnerable, neglected investor class. Unless you’re made of money, it would be hard not to get outraged by the cavalier attitude of this whole story. But if you are a big investor, how “objective” and “unbiased” the feature must seem.
Let’s start with writer Carlo Rotella’s gushing treatment of Grantham:
Doomsayers are always plentiful, and the economic and environmental news has encouraged even more doomsaying than usual of late, but Grantham compels attention, in part because he’s not simply prophesying doom. […] And, crucially, the consequences will be unevenly distributed, creating angles for you to make money and look out for your interests, however you define them.
The New York Times is saying a man deserves attention not because he is pointing out how much trouble lies ahead (however inadequately); it’s because he inspires us to call our stockbrokers rather than run to the woods. In other words, it’s newsworthy because he can help people with capital exploit volatility, the rest of us be damned.
Bailout Nation author and prolific business blogger Barry Ritholtz, whose work I have followed for a couple of years now, appreciates Grantham as a fellow straight shooter. But with praise like the following in the NYTM story, it’s easy to see which side these guys are shooting for:
He’s not telling people to stockpile water and dehydrated food. He’s saying this asset class will underperform or not.
And what about those of us who can’t invest in assets of any class? (The ugly irony, of course, is that if a major collapse happens, it’s unlikely all the asset holdings in the world are going to keep these guys and their families fed and protected, but on the way to “doomsday” they can get filthier rich on paper!)
The whole piece is such a fawn fest, the Times even quotes sources with financial conflicts of interest. We’re treated to praise of Grantham from the head of the Environmental Defense Fund, a group backed by the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment. We also hear from the executive director of that same Foundation, whose job no doubt depends on Grantham’s good graces. On what planet is that legitimate journalism?
The article includes no critics of Grantham or his attitude. In fact, the only bit that could be conceivably construed as criticism is mixed praise of the quarterly letters, coming from another employee of Grantham, who notes some investors complain that Grantham’s advice isn’t immediately applicable enough for them to exploit!
No source points out how bizarre it is that someone notes potential suffering only to dismiss or distract from it, making no real mention of current suffering. No one offers alternative analysis. No one even challenges Grantham’s numbers from any perspective, Left, Right, or Martian.
Enough views about Grantham. What about Grantham’s views? Let’s start with a zinger. In Rotella’s words from the Times piece:
The world’s population could reach 10 billion within half a century — perhaps twice as many human beings as the planet’s overtaxed resources can sustainably support, perhaps six times too many.
We aren’t told that this is only true if we assume the planetary elite — that tiny percentage of the global population that consumes a massive share of resources that could otherwise be used to feed, clothe, heal, shelter, and educate the 60 percent or so that live on less than $2 a day — is permitted to maintain its sickening dominance of global wealth and resources. This status quo is a given for the Times and people who look at Grantham as a prophet of profit angles.
Rotella quotes Grantham’s open letter from July:
We humans have the brains and the means to reach real planetary sustainability. The problem is with us and our focus on short-term growth and profits, which is likely to cause suffering on a vast scale. With foresight and thoughtful planning, this suffering is completely avoidable.
The above statement is just plain wrong. First, it ignores the “suffering on a vast scale” that is already underway! On Day Zero, we’ve got suffering on a vast scale. Who can look around and consider that the horrors already caused by “scarcity” that is in turn caused by market capitalism’s wicked misallocation of goods and resources is anything other than “vast” — I’d rate it as “epic”, even.
Worse, it’s absurd to suggest by implication that the suffering of the world’s poorest can be averted. Some of it can be curbed — perhaps much, even — but the trajectory we are on offers no option for sparing a great many, no matter what radical changes are made. (See, for instance, the recent work of fellow market optimist Paul Gilding, who at least has the integrity to admit widespread suffering caused by climate change and scarcity will be hellish and is inevitable and underway.) And make no mistake, Grantham is not advocating radical changes anyway, least of all those with the most vulnerable in mind.
It isn’t actually clear what “suffering” Grantham is referring to. But even if he’s talking about the “suffering” of wealthy investor class that risks losing its $300 shirts if they don’t play their dollars right, that hardship can be but delayed as Grantham and his friends trample to the aft rim of the Titanic.
Grantham does give some indication of who he’s looking out for, noting that a drastic change in economic priorities will likely come “too late in the sense of failing to protect much of what we enjoy and value today.” By we, he probably doesn’t mean the world’s poorest.
Grantham wisely wants to tie the issue of climate change to that of resource depletion, which he thinks will have a greater impact on the American conscience than that abstract bogey man of global warming. “Global warming is bad news,” Grantham tells the Times. “Finite resources is investment advice.” Again we’re back to those real interests. You’re not going to ride out Grantham’s storm on your 401k.
Cynics like me will have to agree with Grantham to an extent: it’s true that Americans are more interested in their short-term concerns than looking down the road. But Grantham goes a step further; he considers this unfortunate attribute a strength, saying Americans “respond to a market signal better than almost anyone.” How great that we don’t care about those who will be first and most severely affected by climate change — by gosh, we’ll respond when it puts the economic pinch on us… after all, we’re Americans. Meanwhile, the Global South is collectively begging us to respond for their sake (and our own), but the virtuous Americans are awaiting the proper signal.
The Times feature ends unsurprisingly on a note of praise for Grantham.
But I’m not done with him yet.
Grantham’s most-recent letter — the one that has garnered him cult-like attention (that I contributed to because his numbers are very interesting) — is a moral disgrace.
Grantham is extremely smart and insightful. He has a keen eye for some of the limitations of the system he lives by.
Capitalism does not address these very long-term issues easily or well. It seems to me that capitalism’s effectiveness moves along the spectrum of time horizons, brilliant at the short end but lost, irrelevant, and even plain dangerous at the very long end.
Again, how capitalism can be considered brilliant in the short term when billions of humans are food-insecure or at risk of dying from curable diseases is kind of hard for us non-elites to understand. But it’s important for business analysts to comprehend, as Grantham does, that capitalism isn’t even good at keeping their interests steadily shaping up, because markets have extremely limited predictive capabilities.
Grantham tentatively advocates reducing the human population of Earth in such a way that “might leave us with a world population of anywhere from 1.5 billion to 5 billion.” Well, we certainly could go a long way toward solving our resource problem by eliminating the wealthiest billion humans, but something tells me that isn’t who Grantham is thinking about. (I don’t advocate it either, for the record.)
We could more palatably solve many of our resource concerns by knocking out excess consumption by the wealthiest 15 percent of the global population, even while raising the standard of living for the lowest 60 percent or so. But of course that’s not a serious option for the Paper of Record or anyone they’d herald in a praise piece.
Grantham’s letter is devoid of the following words: hunger, poverty, refugee, famine, disease. These are hazards that even the most cynical of elite analysts doesn’t take seriously. Malnutrition and starvation are both mentioned, but one is a historical reference. One use of the terms is in a bullet point glancing over the fact that there will be “increases” in Africa and Asia, and nothing will be done about it. Another mention is used to crassly bolster Grantham’s case against US ethanol subsidies.
Grantham’s letter focuses heavily on agricultural issues, lending some very good analysis of soil and water problems that are worth reading. But it conspicuously ignores the root causes of the soil and water problems he notes: factory farming, livestock dependence, and monocropping. He’s either just learning about the cornucopia of deep-seeded oh-shit crises already facing humanity, or he’s burying most of them for whatever reason. Either way, his agricultural analysis is embarrassingly amateurish.
Perhaps worst of all, Grantham naively exhibits symptoms of a very typical chronic optimism disorder that is virtually religious in nature. This is not uncommon among elites trying earnestly to look down the road. After lamenting (while the Fukushima crisis is still at a high simmer in Japan) that humanity probably won’t make a revolutionary switch to nuclear fission energy, Grantham brightens up:
I believe that in 50 or so years – after many and severe economic and, possibly, social problems – we will emerge with sufficient, reasonably priced energy for everyone to live a decent life (if we assume other non-energy problems away for a moment) even if we don’t radically improve our behavior and make true sustainability our number one goal. In other words, current capitalist responses to higher prices should get the job done.
I’ll stick to the worst of this quotation’s many offenses: the belief, based on nothing but faith, that markets and humanity will somehow, magically, make everything peachy again mid-century. No need to switch economic systems or do anything too radical; after some undisclosed “social problems” that we can assume away, we don’t even need to “radically improve our behavior” in the meantime — everything will fix itself.
Substantiation of such a bizarre claim is unnecessary, because Grantham is telling the financial elite what they want to hear. Worst case scenario: everything will sort itself out after some problems. No worrying about that whole screwing-over-future-generations conundrum. Even the chief doomsayer says they’ll be fine.
That must be comforting for the kind of people the Times finds relevant.
Wow. This powerful, data-heavy paper comes off pretty bombastic, and I admit I’ve only given it a cursory read, but I’ve spot-checked the sourcing, and it holds up better than a lot of this kind of stuff that I come across. I’ve never seen the source before — Amped Status — but I’ll be taking a deeper look at that, too. It has a kind of Alex Jones (crazy) vibe, but I think it may actually be rooted in sanity.
I wish I had time to do a more thorough analysis, but I do not, so I wanted to make sure I shared this. You should just go read it. But in case you need some inducement, here are a few zingers from the report.
- According to most recent Census Bureau data, from 2005 – 2009, average US household wealth declined by 28%. This represents a loss of $27,000 per household. Currently, at least 62 million Americans, 20% of US households, have zero or negative net worth.
- In 2005, 25.7 million Americans needed food stamps, currently 45.8 million people rely on them.
- While 68.3 million Americans struggle to get enough food to eat and wages are declining for 90% of the population, US millionaire household wealth has reached an unprecedented level.