|
California Expert Software
Truth is Everything |
|
||
![]()
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
I emphasize Prof Krugman's OP-ED in today's New York Times (see below). This is an important statement, if only because it supports what we've been saying here in Left and Free for a long time. You don't have to live a dog's life in a dog-eat-dog world.
If you only listen to American propaganda, inspired by
Bandit Thought and controlled by people like Rupert Murdoch (Faux News),
you would never know the French economy is one of the strongest in the
world. You wouldn't know the French people aren't willing to live in an
American-made Hell ... |
The single most important point in Krugman's essay is this: it is a matter of choice. You can have a more regulated economy and do quite well, or you can have an unregulated (cowboy) economy and do OK. It all depends on how people assess "doing well." There is absolutely no necessity for the conditions that exist in the United States.
I think most Americans are convinced the U.S. economy is the result of some natural necessity. Those who benefit from the present arrangements (the winners) swear by it. The losers are generally disenfranchised, so cannot change the arrangements and economic outcomes. The endless outpouring of "invisible hand' propaganda makes it appear the workings of the economy are in the hands of the gods, or controlled by forces beyond our ken. All of that is aimed at dissuading people from changing the ways things are, because Dr. Pangloss says this is 'for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.'
The truth is the people in control - on Wall Street and Madison Avenue, and in Washington, D.C. - know very well the United States has a managed economy, because they are doing the managing. They are not Panglossians. As pointed out in these pages, many times, no rational CEO leaves sales of his company's products to chance. Sales targets are thoroughly researched and prepared for a product before it appears at the mall. Major corporations are seldom surprised about the actual sales of their products. CEOs routinely announce their expectations for the next fiscal quarter or year at quarterly "analyst meetings". They do that, despite the possibility of being prosecuted under the Sarbanes-Oxeley Act for false statements in case their predictions are wrong. The CEOs know they are very unlikely to go to jail, just because the market is managed to produce the "predicted" results. (In cases of market breakdown, they defend themselves by alleging 'acts of god.')
As discussed ad nauseum in these pages, the basic issue is a matter of political philosophy which divides liberals and conservatives. (Remember, economics is really 'political economy,' as even Adam Smith recognized.) Should economic decisions be made publicly by the representatives of the people, or do we leave the economy to private agents and entities responsible to no one but themselves? Conservatives have no doubt the latter alternative is The Answer, so they are market fundamentalists and praise the virtues of "free market" (unregulated) capitalism. Their "free market" works to the great advantage of those private parties who make the decisions. What else would one expect?
In the capitalist economy, the only way the public can benefit is to regulate the enterprises; i.e., remove decision making from private chambers to public spaces. The reason for this should be obvious: aside from a few Saints, who don't own any major enterprises, private decision makers are self-interested. Why should private parties volunteer a benefit, such as health care or vacations, to workers or families at great cost, and no immediately obvious benefit, to themselves? Of course, they don't volunteer, so the rest of the public must force open the treasure box. That is why we have Unions, and why Liberals advocate government regulation.
The second line of defense for conservatives is warning about economic failure if things are not done their way. That worked for a long time, until the late 19th century and the advent of Welfare States. The most spectacular thing about France, right after the Riviera, the Midi, Province, Paris, French style and French cooking, is the demonstration that the French way of living works. The French are NOT going broke any time soon by taking off August. And, they aren't going broke by assuring every citizen health care. The French are a wonderful example of NOT doing things the stupid workaholic, conservative way. (That, all by itself, improves one's health.)
There's a FedEx ad, in which the slow learner eventually asks, "uh ... so we don't get French benefits???"
To which I add, Why Not?
|
French
Family Values
By PAUL KRUGMAN Published July 29, 2005 Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures? Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly? The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice. First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States. It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families. O.K., I'm oversimplifying a bit. There are several reasons why the French put in fewer hours of work per capita than we do. One is that some of the French would like to work, but can't: France's unemployment rate, which tends to run about four percentage points higher than the U.S. rate, is a real problem. Another is that many French citizens retire early. But the main story is that full-time French workers work shorter weeks and take more vacations than full-time American workers. The point is that to the extent that the French have less income than we do, it's mainly a matter of choice. And to see the consequences of that choice, let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart. The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out. But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. Perhaps even more important, however, the members of that French family are compensated for their lower income with much more time together. Fully employed French workers average about seven weeks of paid vacation a year. In America, that figure is less than four. So which society has made the better choice? I've been looking at a new study of international differences in working hours by Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, at Harvard, and Bruce Sacerdote, at Dartmouth. The study's main point is that differences in government regulations, rather than culture (or taxes), explain why Europeans work less than Americans. But the study also suggests that in this case, government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff - to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family - the kind of deal an individual would find hard to negotiate. The authors write: "It is hard to obtain more vacation for yourself from your employer and even harder, if you do, to coordinate with all your friends to get the same deal and go on vacation together." And they even offer some statistical evidence that working fewer hours makes Europeans happier, despite the loss of potential income. It's not a definitive result, and as they note, the whole subject is "politically charged." But let me make an observation: some of that political charge seems to have the wrong sign. American conservatives despise European welfare states like France. Yet many of them stress the importance of "family values." And whatever else you may say about French economic policies, they seem extremely supportive of the family as an institution. Senator Rick Santorum, are you reading this?
E-mail:
krugman@nytimes.com
|
![]()
WalterB -
10:54:53 - Friday, 07/29/2005
![]()
Last update: 11/11/2007
![]()
© Copyright California Expert Software 2007
All rights reserved.