by Michael Roberts
I’ve just been to a lecture by Professor Joseph Stiglitz as part of a series organised by the British Labour Party on ‘new economics’.
The lecture series is designed to raise the level of economic debate
and for the new range of economic advisors to the Labour Party to come
up with ideas. Joseph Stiglitz is one of the advisors. He is a Nobel
prize winner in economics and former chief economist at the World Bank.
And he is author of several books, particularly on the rise of
inequality of incomes and wealth in the major economies over the last 40
years. His latest book is called, Rewriting the rules of the American economy to achieve shared prosperity.
Stiglitz is deeply concerned with the rise in inequality exhibited
across the major economies and elsewhere globally. He obviously sees it
as the major issue before the people and politicians at the moment. He
started by saying that his original PhD thesis was on the subject of
the distribution of income and wealth, in 1969 (published in
Econometrica). Back then, mainstream economics was clear that the
distribution of income or the wage-profit share hardly moves. And as
they taught this fact, the facts started to change and inequality rose sharply from then on!
Stiglitz showed, using the work of Saez, Piketty, Atkinson and others
(often mentioned in this blog) to show the sharp rise in inequality of
income since the 1980s, led by the US and closely followed by the UK,
especially the rise in the share of income and wealth going to the top
1%, or even worse to the top 0.1%. Now eight families have as much wealth as 150 million Americans.
This has all been well documented and so has the impact of extreme inequality on social mobility, life expectancy and poverty. Right now, poor white males of working age are suffering a significant decline in life expectancy, a fall similar to that suffered by Russian males after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s.
While the top 1% has been doing great, the real incomes of average
(median) households has been stagnant since 1995 and for full-time male
workers since 1970! And the minimum wage in real terms (after
inflation) is now lower than it was 60 years ago! Global inequality has
also been rising, with the top 1% of income earners in the world
(obviously mostly in rich countries) increasing their share the most, along with the Chinese middle-class, while
the working class in rich countries have lost ground, as have the very
poorest in the world. All this has been documented before on this blog
and in my Essays on Inequality.
There are two questions that really matter. What has caused the rise
in inequality? And what can we do about it? Stiglitz attempted to
answer these questions. He did not think inequality had risen because
of what he called normal market forces in capitalism, as Piketty has
argued. If you exclude housing wealth, then the income on productive
capital has been falling, so labour income should have risen, but it hasn’t.
No, he thought the main reason was ‘structural’. What happened was
that in the early 1980s, under Reagan and Thatcher, neoliberal policies
were introduced to cut taxes for the rich and relax regulations on
finance and monopolies. This was supposed to boost growth and incomes
for the rich and this would ‘trickle down’ to the rest. Stiglitz said
this policy approach had miserably failed: growth was slower, inequality
worse and average household income stagnated. The financial sector did
not lend funds to invest productively, but to speculate. So the
problem is not capitalism or the market generating inequality, but the
changing of the rules of the market: namely ending regulation,
progressive taxation and public services in a ‘mixed economy’.
But Stiglitz did not say why the rules of the game were changed in
the 1980s – it just happened because of ideology, greed, errors…? He
did not say. Marxists like me would say the policies were changed
because the Golden Age of capitalism with its decent pensions, public
services and benefits and full employment could no longer be afforded by
market capitalism as profitability of capital plunged. The change of
rules was necessary for the saving of the capitalist market system.
Extreme inequality of wealth and income is the norm for capitalism: it
was the short Golden Age after 1945 that was special, not the neoliberal
period since the 1970s, as Piketty has shown.
Stiglitz wants to change the ‘rules’ back. As he said, “I am no left-winger, I’m a middle of the road economist”. He just wants to reduce ‘extreme’ inequality and get growth up.
He is sure that this can be done in the US by getting the Federal
Reserve to set interest rates to promote jobs not reduce inflation; to
cut the student debt burden; increase the minimum wage and introduce
anti-trust laws to break up the banks and big monopolies etc.
Stiglitz admitted that even these mild rule changes were unlikely to
see the light of day in the US, given the present balance of forces in
Congress or for that matter in the UK. I’m tempted to repeat the
comment of left Keynesian Joan Robinson: “Any government which had
both the power and will to remedy the major defects of the capitalist
system would have the will and power to abolish it altogether”.
“We can’t leave to market forces to solve the problems by themselves”,
concluded Stiglitz, so we must rewrite the rules of the game.
like saying bear baiting should be moderated by rewriting the rules.
Why not stop the game altogether.
- AFSCME Local 444 negotiations assesment 1997
- Preparing for Revolution: A discussion document
- The Internal lives of Revolutionary Organizations
- Socialist Alternative members: Questions and Answers
- Sanders: Our Alternative
- The Nature of the New European Left
- Catastrophic Climate Change: Caused by Capitalism
- University of California workers and Unions
- An Invitation to Our Readers