Carlos Maciel, Author at

Green Jobs to Save The World

By now everyone has heard about the Green New Deal; from the Sunrise Movement protesting on Capitol Hill, to the many threads discussing it on social media, the “GND” is a policy the world is eager to talk about. However, it has not always been like this. About two and a half years ago I wrote a piece trying to introduce the general public to the Job Guarantee (JG). Back then, the topic seemed restricted to the circles of lefty publications, Keynesian economists, and a handful of Economic Departments across the world. Now, however, the Job Guarantee has been catapulted into mainstream discourse, thanks to increased popular interest on the GND and MMT.

Nevertheless, even two years ago, there was some precautionary excitement about the Job Guarantee among some advocates of Keynesian spending and proponents of Modern Money Theory (MMT), who have been working on this concept for a long time. Their perspective is amicable to this idea because they are unafraid of a government deficit, and in favor of direct job creation. They understand that deficit-spending is not inherently bad and that the US government will never have to default on its debt. When the economy is not at full employment, increasing the deficit would actually be helpful, not harmful.

However, financial feasibility should not be the only concern when implementing the Job Guarantee. One of the most important dichotomies in Economics lies between growth and environmental sustainability. It is believed that economic growth is damaging to the planet but eco-friendly policies are bound to stun the economy. This, however, is not necessarily the case. It is possible to have both economic flourishing and care for the planet – if we implement a Green Job Guarantee. If we’re going to be at full employment, we have to do it in a way the planet can handle it.

A fiscal stimulus aimed at reducing unemployment is timely and necessary. Despite the confidence expressed by the Fed about the latest employment numbers, the situation for those who are jobless is not looking good. One of the reasons for the latest rate hike by the Fed was their positive outlook on unemployment numbers. Chairman Yellen had gone as far as saying that at 4.6% unemployment rate we were close to full employment and fiscal stimulus is not necessary to reach that goal. However, the US economy keeps adding thousands of jobs every month despite official unemployment dipping below 4%.

The low official joblessness rate hides the fact that an increasing number of Americans have left the labor force altogether. For example, there are currently over 5 million Americans who are not in the labor force but have reported that they want a job. This is where a Job Guarantee program could come in handy. In short, the government would act as an Employer of Last Resort, effectively guaranteeing a job to all of those willing and able to work.

The current structure of the economy relies too heavily on fossil fuels, wasteful production methods and non-renewable resources. Unless we change this, sustaining full-employment would result in increasing production, consumption, and waste. This reminds me of my favorite Keynes’ quote, “In the long run we are all dead.” If we’re talking about a long run of increasing pollution, he would surely be right. As we know, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. This applies to jobs too. Unless the jobs created are green jobs, too much employment will bring us to environmental destruction.

How do we do it?

The issue of the environmental sustainability of a Job Guarantee program has been on my mind since I first heard of the revolutionary employment policy. Mathew Forstater’s Green Jobs proposal has been inspirational to my work. In my Master’s thesis, I tweaked its existing framework to target environmentally sustainable outcomes. I find that we can transform the Job Guarantee program to ensure its sustainability without increasing its cost. Here’s how:

I set up the program in a way that promotes social enterprise and community development, following the work of Pavlina Tcherneva and colleagues. With the help of social entrepreneurs, NGOs, and Nonprofit Organizations, local communities should decide what projects will be undertaken. For example, communities along the Hudson River could support a program where workers dealt with invasive species such as the zebra mussel and water chestnut. Other localities could handle neighborhood farming, recycling centers, flood containment structures, bike paths, etc. It’s been found that if the community is involved in determining what projects are taken on, participation levels are higher.

A more detailed account of my proposal and calculations is available upon request, but this is the gist of it: I used an Input-Output model to establish what would be the cost of employing the official U-3 unemployed population into “green” Job Guarantee jobs. That framework accounts for indirect job creation related to the proposal, but not induced employment. What I find is that the US government can, under conservative assumptions, employ all of those who are officially unemployed for around 1.1% of GDP while paying them a $15hr wage. That is about 17% of the annual military budget. The Green Job Guarantee program is projected to cost just under 200 billion dollars per year in order to ensure employment for 7.8 million people.

As the world economy quickly transitions into a more sustainable state, a shift in the productive structure will occur, rendering some current occupations useless. Workers who are employed in areas like fossil fuel energy generation (the fabled coal workers of the American Midwest for example) will be left without a job and unlikely to find a new one right away. There is no way to predict how quickly this transition will occur: it could be a gradual–albeit fast–process if led by government initiative, a slower and insufficient movement if guided by profit motives, or even a sudden transition caused by a widespread popular response to natural disasters.

Given current trends, I don’t believe it’s too optimistic to think the transition to a renewable energy generation and a sustainable economy will occur before the fossil reserves are depleted. As such, fossil fuel workers (and those who depend on their consumption) are at risk of losing their jobs in the near future. A Job Guarantee program would allow those workers to not only find employment readily but also to acquire on-the-job skills that will allow them an easier transition into the Green economy.

As we continue to criticize and investigate the policy ideas being put out there, let’s look beyond the government deficit, and consider the planet too. Whether you’re afraid of government debt or not, you should be concerned with the destruction of the earth. If we are going to have a public program that aims at generating new jobs and bringing people back into the workforce, then that program should be a Job Guarantee. But, if we’re going to guarantee jobs, they will have to be green. And we have all the tools we need to make that happen.*

*Interested in some good work on how to build a sustainable economy? Check out the publications from PERI and the Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. Interested in a non-profit that is already doing some great things in that area? Visit GreenWave‘s website and get involved!

What is the Minimum Wage that Will Employ Everyone?

It is official, the unemployment rate in the US has dropped to its lowest level in 16 years. Economists all around the country must be tapping themselves in the back and buying each other drinks in congratulations, right? Wrong. Despite the official drop in joblessness, we have a decline in labor participation, an increase in the “skill gap” in the labor force (i.e. unemployed workers’ skills do not match those needed by open jobs) and, arguably most importantly, wages that fail to rise fast enough.

For starters, the latest reports show that the year-over-year wage growth rate has been stagnating; it reached 2.5 percent since last year, which is just marginally above inflation. It is difficult to determine exactly why people drop out of the labor force, but we can speculate that some do so because of the lack of pay increases. Whatever the reason, the dropout is a significant part of the declining unemployment rate—e.g. the May report shows that 429,000 people dropped out of the labor force. A nation with a population that is actively leaving the labor force and that deals with stagnant wages is a nation facing serious socioeconomic problems.

The problem at hand, then, is a question economists have been dealing with for ages: how can we increase earnings and employment at the same time? Common economic understanding would argue that we have to choose between higher wages and more jobs. The main argument against minimum wage hikes is that it would increase unemployment. That claim is factually untrue (just look at Seattle) and there are a number of ways to address the issue. At The Minskys we have tackled this topic several times, and shown that a decent minimum wage does not have to reduce the number of jobs out there. One way to have both is with a Job Guarantee (JG) program.

One of the more interesting consequences of a JG program is that it would create a de-facto minimum wage without the need of actually raising the minimum wage. The JG wage would become the minimum wage for the entire economy. Workers receiving less than the JG wage would be inclined to take a JG job, and employers would have to raise their salary offers in order to keep their workforce. Given the impact of the pay offered by the program, it is important that the JG wage rate be thoroughly discussed.

The JG literature has a large number of works focused on the topic of wages. Some suggest the pay to vary with skill-level. Others advocate for JG wages to be the same as they would be in the market. But having multiple compensation packages would make the logistics and application of a JG program much more complicated.

To find the best wage rate for JG jobs, a few parameters should be considered. First, the JG framework is to create jobs that provide at least a minimum “subsistence” rate, so that workers can live a decent life. As such, it is clear that the JG wage should at least be the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Second, the goal of the JG is not, and should never be, to replace the private sector. So, the JG wage should not exceed the average wage paid in the private sector ($25.31 in 2016). This creates an upper limit.

With these lower and upper limits in place we can raise the floor or lower the ceiling, ultimately arriving at the proper wage rate paid by this full employment policy. Recent polls show that Democrats, Republicans and Independents—in their majority—all support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, which suggests that there may be widespread political support to increasing the minimum wage.We can raise the lower limit further after we consider the per capita income in the US, which would put the fair minimum wage at $12.00 an hour. The lower limit of $12 an hour is appropriate since it is marginally above the poverty rate of $11.53 for a household with two children where only one of the parents is employed.

A good point within that range is the $15.00 hourly wage rate. Legislation regarding this wage rate has recently been approved in cities such as Seattle, Los Angeles, and the state of New York. There is also a movement by workers demanding that it becomes the floor in the fast food and retail industries. It seems appropriate, therefore, to follow these cities and movements by determining the going wage rate for a JG program to be set at $15.00 an hour. After all, a national JG cannot pay less than locally established minimum wages. On the other hand, the guarantee of a job in, for example, Seattle paying $15.00 per hour, while surrounding areas are offering lower pay could saturate one area in detriment of another.

As previously discussed, the JG wage would become the minimum wage to the entire economy. Consequently, workers who currently earn less than the $15.00 an hour rate would receive a raise. In total, accounting also for the ripple effects faced by workers in the $15.00 to $19.00 range, roughly 64.7 million workers would receive a wage increase, which means 43.5 percent of the labor force would see their wage income go up. To avoid inflationary pressures, allow for seamless implementation, and contain possible—albeit historically improbable—negative employment effects from the minimum wage hike, the transition to this wage through the implementation of the JG program will have to be done incrementally.

The Job Guarantee is an effective way to solve the three major problems currently facing the American labor market: the skill gap, the dropout of workers from the labor force, and most importantly the stagnant wages. We have empirically observed that wage increases not only do not increase unemployment, but they also serve as a catalyst for economic growth and towards social equity. The US economy has plenty of needs that can be fulfilled by giving well-paying jobs to its unemployed. The $15/hour wage is not only fair, it is a necessary measure to ensure the prosperity of this nation.

In Defense of Dodd-Frank

It’s been nearly a decade since we first felt effects of the Great Recession. While the recession officially ended, its consequences still affect us. Some are beneficial, others (like sluggish growth and the number of people leaving the labor market) not so much. One of the better side effects of the 2007-2008 crash, however, is likely to disappear rather soon: the Dodd-Frank act. The newly inaugurated White House is eager to scrap that set of financial regulations.

My goal with this post is to present a very simple explanation of what Dodd-Frank is, why some people want it gone, and why we should fight to keep it and strengthen it. Hopefully, this accessible explanation will motivate more people to join the fight. Maybe then we can have our voices heard. With this objective in mind, I am aware that some details will not be pursued to their full extent, but the overall message should still be whole.

Let me start with a very simplified analogy. Think of the financial system as a system of highways. In a modern highway, there are usually a few lanes on each side, separated by a median. There are many regulations put in place to make sure that the people zooming past each other inside two tons of metal–all the while sitting inches away from gallons of gasoline–do it safely. In this analogy, your average American with their savings, retirement account, mortgage, student debt and credit cards is driving north on the “commercial” lanes in their Peel P-50 (click the link, it will help you understand where I am going with this). Besides them are other entities such as big banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and the like. Those are heavy 18-wheelers and tanker trucks, so the massive gusts of wind that they create will shake smaller cars as they pass by. Of course, whenever a P-50 gets into a crash (like when a head of household goes bankrupt) it is tragic, but it does little to the overall flow of traffic. However, when one of those big vehicles crashes, it often leads to a chain reaction of other accidents, which affects all other drivers and overall makes everyone’s day a lot worse.

After the great crash of 1929 (the financial crash, I’m unaware of any major vehicular crashes from back then), a set of fairly stiff regulations were designed to keep the drivers of that industry–namely the banks and other financial institutions–from getting in other accidents of similar magnitude. Those regulations were known as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, enacted as an answer to the failure of almost 5,000 banks. The legislation was put in place to strengthen the public’s opinion towards the financial sector, to curb the use of bank credit speculation, and to direct credit towards more “real economy” uses. In our analogy, Glass-Steagall introduced a number of norms to the ‘financial highway’. Most notably, it created a solid median between the financial and the commercial banking lanes. Now, commercial banks could not use their clients’ funds to engage in risky investments in the financial markets. In our analogy, it means that before Glass-Steagall those big trucks were free to go across the road to the “wrong way” whenever they felt like doing so would be beneficial for them. In addition, Glass-Steagall also created the FDIC, which insures bank deposits; think of it as the weight-per-axis limitations that help preserve the roads from the damage caused by overloaded trucks.

Fast forward to the Clinton presidency, 1999 to be exact. By then, the broad belief that separation between financial and commercial banking was necessary had lost force, even though it had kept the American economy away from any significantly serious recession/depression for over 70 years. That year the barrier between the financial and commercial lanes was brought down. Now, banks and other financial players were free to drive on whatever side of the highway they wanted; banks (and others) are now able to use their clients savings and retirements accounts to buy and sell toxic financial assets such as CDOs. As a result, they were able to take bigger risks, which brought–in many cases–good rewards. This is the era of leveraging, or what Minsky called “Money Manager Capitalism.” To some, it was clear that such an environment would eventually lead to a big crash; a few smaller ones serving as a warning. Indeed, with 2007 came the worst financial and economic ‘accident’ in almost 80 years.

Financial regulations are naturally reactionary. As Minsky stated, the economy is inherently unstable, and in good part that is due to the financial sector’s insatiable thirst for financial innovation. Regulators need to remain attentive to the markets and introduce rules to curb too-risky behaviors as they surface. This is especially true in the days and weeks following a crisis. Once the dust has settled we can look into the causes for the downturn, and put in place measures that are supposed to keep it from happening again, not unlike the way traffic regulations are designed. As such, the Dodd-Frank Act was drafted to put a stop to some of the recklessness that drove us to the Great Recession.

In short, Dodd-Frank ended Too Big to Fail Bailouts, created a council that identifies and addresses systemic risks within the industry’s most complex members, targeted loopholes that allowed for abusive financial practices to go unnoticed, and gave shareholders a say on executive pay. It aims to increase transparency and ethical behavior within the financial sector, both of which are good things.

In no way is the Act perfect. Some, like me, would have advocated for much stiffer regulatory practices like rebuilding the division between financial and commercial banks, or taking a more definitive approach to dissolving Too-Big-To-Fail institutions. Therefore, during its somewhat short existence, Dodd-Frank has received much criticism. While some of those critiques were fair and well founded, the loudest critics were the ones coming at a wrong angle. As it happens the loudest critics now have the opportunity to scrap those safeguarding regulations altogether.

The most common criticism of the Act (and the main reason the administration has given to overrule it) is that it has made it harder for people and businesses to borrow. That criticism is untrue. For example, Fed Chair Janet Yellen showed in her latest address to the senate that “lending has expanded overall by the banking system, and also to small businesses.” A survey from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, cited by Yellen, shows that only 2 percent of businesses that responded cited access to capital as a great obstacle to their activities. Furthermore, to claim that Dodd-Frank has a macro impact on lending is, at least, sketchy. As Yves Smith puts it:

“For starters, big corporations use bank loans only for limited purposes, such as revolving lines of credit (which banks hate to give but have to for relationship reasons because they aren’t profitable) and acquisition finance for highly leveraged transactions (and the robust multiples being paid for private equity transactions says there is no shortage of that). Banks lay off nearly all of the principal value of these loans in syndications or via packaging them in collateralized loan obligation. They are facing increased competition from the private equity firm’s own credit funds, which have become a major force in their own right. Otherwise, big companies rely on commercial paper and the bond markets for borrowing. And with rates so low and investors desperate for yield, many have been borrowing, for sure….but not to invest, but to a large degree to buy back their own stock.”

In fact, the amount of cash held by American corporations reached an all-time high in 2013. This shows that companies are sitting in liquidity without investing in the real economy. The hoarding of liquidity could even be considered an actual fail of Dodd-Frank; unlike the stiffer Glass-Steagall act it did not focus on pushing investment into the production of real goods and services.

The publicized reasoning behind repealing Dodd-Frank is untrue, so what is the motivation for lobbying against the regulations? In my opinion, there are two main arguments. The less malicious one is that there is still people out there who believe than an unregulated, free-for-all financial sector is effective, benevolent, and will serve the greater good. It is almost a dogmatic position based mostly on circular logic, and unrealistic economics modeling (which often does not even take the financial sector into account!), and lack of supporting evidence. It should be put aside. The second argument seems to be popular among lobbyists and government officials: reducing regulations will allow (at least in the short run) for immense profits.

Without Dodd-Frank, Wall Street will most likely revert to the risky and reckless practices that led to the Great Recession. The repeal of the act would, in Minskian terms, act as a catapult launching us towards the Ponzi state of finance, in which risky borrowing and lending end in a financial crisis. Doomsday predictions aside, repealing Dodd-Frank would hurt the common folk like you and I. For example, the Fiduciary Rule is likely to also be erased, and it requires that investment advisers put their clients’ interests above their own. This puts people’s retirement savings at great risk. If money managers do not have to act in their clients’ best interest, they will make decisions that allow them to maximize their commission even if it means losing money for their clients. Additionally, to some extent, the repeal would kill thousands of jobs across the nation; because of Dodd-Frank, financial institutions had to create and staff entire departments focused on quality assurance and compliance, without the rules these employees are not longer needed. Finally, without the rules, banks can go right back to targeting the most vulnerable and financially illiterate among us, offering them loans, mortgages, and other predatory instruments they cannot possibly afford; it would be disastrous.

Reverting back to our simplified analogy. Since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the highways of the financial systems do not have a median, separating investment traffic from going the ‘wrong way’ into the commercial lanes. Further repealing rules such as the Dodd-Frank Act, without substituting with a set of better regulations, is like removing the usage of turning signals, the requirement for turning the lights on at night, and speed limits – all the while releasing the Bull from Wall Street right in the middle of heavy traffic. Accidents will happen, and in the case of our financial highway it does not matter if we are inside the vehicles involved, we are all going to become casualties of the crash.

A Green Job Program Will Help Workers, the Economy, and the Planet

There’s been much talk about Trump’s plan for jobs and infrastructure that entails over one trillion dollars in new spending (without tax increases) and promises to employ thousands of American workers. Because it looks like this would require significant deficit spending, it has drawn stiff criticism: even Trump’s the own conservative supporters have expressed concern.

Among advocates of Keynesian spending and Modern Money Theory (MMT), however, some precautionary excitement can be observed. Their perspective is different because they are unafraid of a government deficit, and in favor of direct job creation. They understand that deficit-spending is not inherently bad, and that the US government will never have to default on its debt. When the economy is not at full employment, increasing the deficit would actually be helpful, not harmful.

A fiscal stimulus aimed at reducing unemployment is timely and necessary. Despite the confidence expressed by the Fed about the latest employment numbers, the situation for those who are jobless is not looking good. One of the reasons for the latest rate hike by the Fed was their positive outlook on unemployment numbers. Chairman Yellen has gone as far as saying that (at 4.6% unemployment rate) we are close to full employment and fiscal stimulus is not necessary to reach that goal.

However, the low official joblessness rate hides the fact that an increasing number of Americans have left the labor force altogether; for example there are currently over 5 million Americans who are not in the labor force but have reported that they want a job. This is where a Job Guarantee program could come in handy. In short, the government would act as an Employer of Last Resort, effectively guaranteeing a job to all of those willing and able to work.

And if Trump uses the deficit-spending towards jobs in infrastructure, it might result in something that resembles the job guarantee policy that America needs**. I argue, however, that the financial feasibility should not be the only criterium for a successful implementation of the job-guarantee. It also has to be sustainable. If we’re going to be at full employment, we have to do it in a way the planet can handle.

The current structure of the economy relies too heavily on fossil fuels, wasteful production methods and non-renewable resources. Unless we change this, sustaining full-employment would result in increasing production, consumption, and waste. My favorite Keynes’ quote is that “In the long run we are all dead.” If we’re talking about a long run of increasing pollution, he will surely be right. As we know, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. This applies to jobs too. Unless they are green jobs, too many jobs will be bring us environmental destruction.

The issue of the environmental sustainability of a Job Guarantee program has been on my mind since I first heard of the proposal. Mathew Forstater’s Green Jobs proposal was inspirational to my work. In my Master’s thesis, I tweak its existing framework to target environmentally sustainable outcomes. I find that we can transform the Job Guarantee program to ensure its sustainability without increasing its cost. Here’s how:

I set up the program in a way that promotes social enterprise and community development, following the work of Pavlina Tcherneva et al. With the help of social entrepreneurs, NGOs, and Nonprofit Organizations, local communities should decide what projects will be undertaken. For example, communities along the Hudson river could support a program where workers dealt with invasive species such as the zebra mussel and water chestnut. Other localities could handle neighborhood farming, recycling centers, flood containment structures, bike paths, etc.. It’s been found that if the community is involved in determining what projects are taken on, participation levels are higher.

A more detailed account of my proposal and calculations is available upon request, but this is the gist of it: I used an Input-Output model to establish what would be the cost of employing the official U-3 unemployed population into “green” Job Guarantee jobs. That framework accounts for indirect job creation related to the proposal, but not induced employment. What I find is that the US government can, under conservative assumptions, employ all of those who are officially unemployed for around 1.1% of GDP while paying them a $15hr wage. That is about 17% of the annual military budget. The Green Job Guarantee program is projected to cost just under 200 Billion dollars per year in order to ensure employment for 7.8 million people.

Given current trends it is safe to assume that the transition to a renewable energy generation and a sustainable economy will occur before the fossil reserves are depleted. Just as the stone age ended before we ran out of stone, the “oil-age” will end before we run out of oil. As such, fossil fuel workers (and those who depend on their consumption) are at risk of losing their jobs in the near future. A Job Guarantee program would allow those workers to not only find employment readily, but also to acquire the on-the-job skills that will allow them an easier transition into the Green economy.

So as we continue to criticize and investigate the means of job-creation proposed by the President-Elect, let’s look beyond the government deficit, and consider the planet, too. Whether you’re afraid of government debt or not, you should be concerned with the destruction of the earth. If we are going to have a public program that aims a generating new jobs and bringing people back into the workforce, then that program should be a Job Guarantee. But, if we’re going to guarantee jobs, the will have to be green. And we have all the tools we need to make that happen.
*Interested in some good work on how to build a sustainable economy? Check out the publications from PERI and the Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. Interested in a non-profit that is already doing some great things in that area? Visit GreenWave‘s website and get involved!

** I must make clear that, although Trump’s infrastructure plan might very loosely look like a Job Guarantee program because of its intent, it differs significantly from it because of how it will will be implemented. The president elect’s plan is based on private spending and making concessions to big corporations; it is basically a big giveaway to developers and not a program to ensure full-employment and financial stability.

Brazil May Be About to Give Up its Financial Sovereingty

These are strange times. For those who have been drowning in the craziness milk-shake that is the United States presidential campaign and have not been able to follow other world events (we do not blame you), it should come with some assurance to know that the rest of the world is not doing much better. Case and point is that the acting president of Brasil, Michel Temer, who came to power for being the VP of impeached president Dilma Rousseff, is trying to make Brazil the least financially autonomous nation in the world.

Temer and his cabinet, who have been working towards the implementation of austerity measures in Brazil since they came to power, have proposed a constitutional amendment that will severely limit Brazil’s flexibility in government spending. It would be the 93rd amendment to Brazil’s ‘young’ 1988 constitution. In short, the Constitutional Amendment Proposal 241* (PEC 241 in Portuguese), would create an artificial limit to government spending, which would become pegged to the previous year’s inflation.

The Brazilian economy is facing a dire recession even though the Bovespa stock index and real currency BRBY rank among the world’s best-performing assets this year. The pressure towards austerity is coming from both internal and external players, and the financial markets have rallied well to the prognostic of the amendment’s approval. Despite its failure to produce meaningfully positive results elsewhere, austerity is still seen positively by international financial markets.

The amendment makes Brazilian fiscal policy hostage to inflation, thus inverting the hierarchy of economic policy in the country; instead of using of its taxes and spending to control inflation, inflation would control Brazilian economic policy. On one hand it makes the job of lawmakers and policymakers a lot easier, on another it takes away powers granted by the constitution to the Brazilian congress and it is, as put by Brazil’s Attorney General, unconstitutional.

The amendment has been approved by a special commission in Brazil’s lower house on the 6th, and four days later was approved by the lower house as a whole. It comes as a victory to Temer’s austere aspirations for austerity measures had been failing to be implemented in Brazil even during the final days of the previous government. Temer’s own efforts had been facing serious challenges until now.

It is not to say that it all good sailing weather for PRC 241. Portions of the public have come out against the measure. Notably, economists have argued that the debt problem in Brazil is caused by a fall in tax revenue and not because of overspending. Indeed, the high unemployment rates combined with high inflation – among other factors – have caused a real decline in revenue of 2.5%. Meanwhile small business owners in retail have experienced decreases of as high as 30% to their revenue streams.

For those versed in Functional Finance and Modern Monetary Theory this will seem as completely nonsensical. Brazil, currently, is a financially sovereign nation to a good extent. It prints its own currency and taxes on that currency. It, however, has emitted debt in foreign currency, namely the dollar. The amendment would limit this sovereignty, making the Brazilian economy work only within the limits set by the (interior and exterior) factors that affect inflation.

If you have followed our posts for a while, you have read some strong arguments on why austerity is not the remedy for countries facing as recession and that smart fiscal stimulus is much more likely to succeed.

*Some of the sources for this article are in Portuguese.

*This post was written by Carlos Maciel

Can we Learn from Minsky Before the Next Crisis?

Earlier this month I had a conversation with a regional manager from a major insurance company. She explained to me the many aspects of her industry: the commission based salaries, strategies to sell life insurance to one year-old children, and how to retain employees. To be honest, I don’t find insurance to be the most riveting topic out there, but I did have a question I wanted answered: What does her company do with the money their clients pay for their insurance packages? Her response surprised me for its candor, she said:

“You know, insurance companies don’t make their money from premiums and things like that anymore. Most profits come from investing in the stock market.”

We truly are in the era, as Minsky called it, of money manager capitalism. What this means is that insurance companies are no longer in the business of insurance, they are just another player in the financial markets; the only thing that differs is how they get their capital. Combine that with the fact that many of their employees have their entire pay check dependent on commissions and we have companies that are trying to sell as many policies as possible – sometimes to people who do not need it or can’t afford it – in order to have more capital for financial investments.

If that sounds familiar it is because those are the kind of practices (while obviously not the only one) that led to the Great Recession and specifically to the crash of insurance giant AIG (which was bailed out with 182 billion dollars). It is, to say the least, disheartening to see that those practices are still in place by insurers and elsewhere, but it is hardly surprising. To know why we must turn to Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis.

minsky (1) — Illustration: Heske van Doornen

The Hypothesis is possibly the most notable part of Minsky’s extensive work, it is indeed brilliant in its accuracy and simplicity. Nevertheless, it seems to escape from the spotlight of economics and politics in an counter-cyclical manner: every time the economy does well, people seem to forget about it – but during the crisis his book Stabilizing an Unstable Economy went from costing less than 20 dollars, to over 800 (that is, if you could find it). Another example, The Economist had only mentioned him once while Minsky was alive, but since the 2007 crisis his ideas have appeared in over 30 of their articles. As the British newspaper puts it, “it remained until 2007, when the subprime-mortgage crisis erupted in America. Suddenly, it seemed that everyone was turning to his writings as they tried to make sense of the mayhem.” Therein lies the irony, it is exactly when the economy is booming that we should pay the most attention to the Financial Instability Hypothesis.

In short, Minsky postulated that stability is destabilizing, as Oscar Valdes-Viera has awesomely explained before in this blog. In his post, Oscar tells us to be skeptical of politicians who say the economy is doing well; that is when individuals and institutions are moving from hedge, to speculative, to Ponzi positions. In most cases, economic actors will become eerie of risk after a crisis and shun from risky investments such as CDOs. It seems, however, that this aversion to risk has not happened. One can speculate many reasons for this behavior, among which is the bailing-out of so called “Too-Big-to-Fail ” organizations.

As such, it is clear that although Minsky’s popularity increased during the last crisis, the people making important financial decision did not learn from his work. The problem of irresponsible behavior and borderline fraudulent financial innovations still remain. It is time to enact on a less popular, although still important, part of Minsky’s work: the “Big Bank”. That bank, naturally, is the Fed and it plays a number of roles: it sets interest rates, it regulates and supervises banks, and it acts as lender of last resort. However, as Randall Wray explains in a 2011 paper, “most Fed policy over the postwar period involved reducing regulation and supervision, promoting the natural transition to financial fragility.”

Case and point, the SEC and the IRS had their budget severely cut in 2014 and do not currently have the capacity effectively regulate the financial industry. To make matters worse, shadow banks and traditional banks – as demonstrated anecdotally by my conversation with the insurance agency manager – still intermingle in financial innovations. Common sense dictates that after the 2008 crisis companies should have reset to the more sustainable and safer hedge position, but it seems that many financial actors went right back to the more unsustainable speculative position after the crash. One could also have expected that financial jobs would decline in popularity post-2008, but the opposite has occurred; finance as an industry now takes 25% of corporate profits, but only makes up 4% of jobs in the US. The rising importance of the finance industry has other adverse effects besides increasing the possibility of crisis, it means that companies are not investing in producing real output for they can earn more by playing the markets.

Hence is the place in which we found the economy: misguided policy has created a weak regulatory environment where irresponsible risk-taking is ‘insured’ by the precedent set by bail outs, and where even the highest ever levels of liquidity do not lead to real investment and a strong economy. This bad omens have inspired many economists to declare that a crisis is coming. Add to that the fact that recently Minsky has been featured in mainstream media sources like The Economist, and that his seminal book in financial instability was recently the number one best seller on Amazon for Public Finance, and one has reason to feel a bit uneasy about the coming year.

The Job Guarantee: The Coolest Economic Policy You’ve Never Heard Of

When you think of economic issues what are the first things that come to mind? Poverty, inequality, unemployment, inflation, and crisis are all common answers to the question. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a policy that could address all of those issues (and more) in a cost-effective manner? In this piece I will give a very brief introduction to Job Guarantee (JG) schemes, the proverbial economic silver bullet.

Hyperboles aside, Job Guarantee proposals (which may come in many different names such as Employer of Last Resort, or Public Service Employment) are a remarkably good way to address many of the social economic problems current faced by populations all over the world. Ideas about JG programs date back to as early as the 1600s, they have been implemented in many nations during a variety of different stages of the business cycle – and usually to a great deal of success.

Simply put, JG is a direct public employment policy where all of those people who are willing and able to work are guaranteed a job given that these individuals meet some basic employability requirements. Most proponents of JG establish that these jobs should pay a basic, fixed, uniform wage plus full medical coverage and free child care (the latter can be provided by JG workers themselves). The goal of the program should be to ensure that all full-time JG workers are able to obtain a living standard that is above a reasonable poverty threshold. Thus, this sort of program go a long way in addressing poverty. Furthermore, it would also target another major economic problem, the stagnation of real wages and the currently low minimum wage granted to US workers. The JG wage would instantly become the minimum wage for the entire economy: workers in other sectors that are receiving less than the JG wage would be very compelled to take one of those guaranteed jobs, and employers would have to raise their salary offers in order to keep their workforce. Finally, the wages would also act as price anchor, which improves upon the stability of the economy.

The first question I usually get when telling someone about the Job Guarantee is “yeah but, how can we afford it?!” Questions about the deficit and national debt have been put to rest previously on this blog (see here), hence I shall focus on other questions regarding its affordability. For starters, it has been shown elsewhere that JG is remarkably cheaper and more effective than other proposals, such as Basic Income and Negative Income Tax, in achieving lower poverty and unemployment rates (see here, and in many pieces by Rutger’s Phillip Harvey). Secondly, the newly employed JG workers would bring in savings in many different ways: they would get out of unemployment insurance, food-stamps, and other such programs; they will pay income tax, medicare and social security tax, as well as more consumption related taxes; and the government would spend less on issues that are related to poverty, such as higher crime rates. In addition, employment multipliers would make it so the JG program would not have to employ the entire unemployed population. The extra consumption and production related to the JG will create indirect and induced jobs which will represent a significant portion of the job creation from the program. Finally, yours truly is among a number of economists who have modeled the implementation of a a JG for the US and found that eliminating unemployment at a living wage would cost just around 1% of the American GDP.

At this point many say something like “but employing everyone while raising the minimum wage has to be inflationary!” the answer to which is a simple “nope”. First, we have to bear in mind that in the current system the economy’s most precious resource – workers – is being wasted in unemployment, while under a JG program it will be put to use. Orthodox economic thought claims that millions of people need to be unemployed in order to contain inflation, that it is financially “sound” to a tenth of the population in idleness for an unknown period of time. It comes from the idea that the economy is always operating at full capacity, which then brings the inflation problem to being a matter of equilibrating the demand and supply forces of the economy. Both of these assertions are, to quote Keynes, “crazily improbable – the sort of thing that which no man could believe had not his head fuddled with nonsense for years and years.” Government expenditure is as inflationary as any other sector expenditure. Unemployed workers are spending in consumption either way, being sustained by welfare or, dangerously, by credit – and there’s nothing financially “sound” about that.

A JG program would in fact control for inflation by proving a minimum wage anchor for prices and by increasing the productive capacity of the economy through its projects. It would take off the pressure put on demand from the unemployed by increasing supply of goods and services by incorporating those idle workers in the productive structure. Furthermore, even if we assume it to be inflationary it would be a “one-time” increase in inflation, and not an accelerating type one, meaning that demand (and inflation) wouldn’t rise above the full employment level.

In that sense, the costs associated with a JG program (increasing budget deficit and inflation) are not more than ideological myths that obscure the true social costs of unemployment and poverty and curtails any innovative attempts to deal with them. Indeed, generating aggregate demand, employment and inflation is all what the US economy has tried to do since the 2008 financial crisis, but through the wrong ways. A JG program would be extremely more efficient and less costly than QE or negative interest rates. As the world crumbles in economic and political instability, guaranteeing jobs would surely deal with most of its problems. It is up to governments to load and shoot that silver bullet. I don’t think there’s a more appropriate time than now.

Written by Carlos Maciel & Vitor Mello
Illustrations by Heske van Doornen