Category: Uncategorized

What the China Currency Depreciation Means for the Chinese Model–and for the US

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I argue here that critics of China’s recent currency depreciation are missing the big picture. First, depreciation is a desperate measure which is a sign of the coming implosion of the Chinese economic model. Second,  depreciation is a double-edged sword for China, because the Chinese export machine is heavily dependent on imported components that will rise in prices with depreciation. Third, the ultimate effect of a China economic implosion will be to send US interest rates and inflation soaring. Fourth,  on the positive side, there may be an opportunity to rebuild the US manufacturing sector, if China’s economy is in turmoil.  Fifth, the political implication is that presidential and other candidates should not expect a stable economy going into 2016, and a ‘crisis’ message may be needed.

China has been experiencing a massive debt bubble, with Bloomberg reporting that “outstanding loans for companies and households stood at a record 207 percent of gross domestic product at the end of June, up from 125 percent in 2008.” The stock market has plunged, construction is slowing, and  consumer spending is weak.

So what happens next?  We’ve never seen a situation like China before, when a country that is a massive exporter of goods and lending gets into trouble. Most economists, if they have put any thought into a Chinese economic collapse, believe that the government will deflate the currency and ramp up exports to get out of trouble.

But that simply misses the nature of the Chinese economy.  In recent years China has been a massive machine for importing components in other countries, assembling them in China, and shipping them abroad. According to the OECD, roughly one-third of the value of Chinese exports consists of “foreign value-added,” meaning imported components and the like.  Depreciation can only help so much, since a weaker currency will also increase the cost of the components, even as it makes exports less pricey. What’s more, as the financial system implodes, it will become harder for Chinese companies to get the financing to import the needed components, or to pay back loans for their factories. Moreover, facing a higher unemployment and a restive population, the Chinese government may have to let wages rise even more, reducing China’s competitiveness and boosting the cost of Chinese exports to foreigners.

What does this mean for the US?  China will have to start liquidating some of its mammoth foreign exchange reserves to deal with the crisis, including handling bad debt and importing consumer goods from the rest of the world. And if the Chinese government starts selling US Treasures in large quantities, rather than buying, that will mean upward pressure on interest rates.

More important will be the effect on inflation. Arguably the flood of cheap exports coming out of China has been the single most important force holding down the US inflation rate. Chinese-made goods have dropped in price in recent years, while US made consumer goods (excepting food and energy) have risen in price at the producer level. If the China export machine stalls or rises in price, we could see a spike in inflation in the US. Rising interest rates and inflation could be bad news for the US economy.

The positive news, from the US point of view, is that this may provide an opportunity to do some rebuilding of the US manufacturing sector. As Chinese supply proves unreliable, companies may be more likely to look at home.

And what about the US presidential campaign?  Rather than issues like wages and inequality, candidates may find themselves facing a rerun of the 1980 campaign, when inflation and interest rates were the key problems. Candidates need to develop a ‘crisis’ message ahead of time, because events may be quick moving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WSJ: Beyond the Internet, Innovation Struggles

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel’s recent work on measuring innovation was featured in the Wall Street Journal:

In a new study, Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute notes that previous innovation waves straddled numerous disciplines: information processing, transportation, medicine, energy and materials. There’s a reason why, in the 1967 film “The Graduate,” Dustin Hoffman’s character is told “there’s a great future in plastics.” The development of thermoplastics in the 1930s and 1940s made possible products that are now ubiquitous in business and household life.

Where are the comparable advances in materials today? The Nobel prize was awarded in 1987 for the discovery of high-temperature superconductors—material that can carry electric current without resistance at temperatures above extreme cold. But as Mr. Mandel notes, few commercial superconductor applications are on the market. Nanotechnology—building materials out of microscopic particles—has found its way into tennis balls and odor-resistant fabrics but hardly measures up to steel or plastic in its breadth of uses.

The staggering sums invested in biosciences haven’t yielded breakthroughs comparable to antibiotics in the 1930s and 1940s. The human genome was sequenced more than a decade ago. Yet as Mr. Mandel notes, there is still no approved gene therapy for sale.

Quantifying innovation is difficult: Government statistics don’t adequately measure activities that only recently came into existence. Mr. Mandel circumvents this problem by surmising that innovation leaves its mark in the sorts of skills employers demand. For example, the shale oil and gas revolution is apparent in the soaring numbers of mining, geological and petroleum engineers, whereas the ranks of biological, medical, chemical, and materials scientists have slipped since 2006-07.

Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal.

POLITICO: New Democrats plan ‘assertive’ new presence in House

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The New Democrat Coalition sees opportunities this fall on taxes, trade, Medicare and others.
 by Lauren French, POLITICO

In the hierarchy of the House, moderate Democrats — a minority in a party already deep in the minority — should be totally powerless.

But a group of pro-business Democrats, who allied with President Barack Obama and Republicans to pass landmark trade legislation, are angling to cut more deals with the GOP and White House as a way to assert themselves — and force the Democratic Caucus to the center.

Led by Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, the New Democrat Coalition of some 50 members sees opportunities this fall on taxes, trade, Medicare and government spending. Those are all areas where House Republicans have struggled to fashion 218-vote majorities from within their own party, with a cadre of restive conservatives often rejecting leadership’s compromises with Senate Democrats and Obama.

That leaves an opening for swing moderates to get legislation across the finish line.

“We need to reconstitute the center of American politics again, on both sides. That is a crucial role we have to play, especially when it comes to the economic message and what resonates in those competitive districts,” Kind said in a recent interview.

Moderates are tired of being overshadowed in a party where liberals have long dominated the agenda, even as Democrats slipped further into the House minority after the 2014 midterm elections. They’ve accused the White House and party leaders of focusing too much on niche economic issues like the minimum wage and pay equity — policies, moderates argue, that turn off suburban voters Democrats need if they want to take back the House. And top Democratic leaders have released them to break with the party’s liberal base, in many cases an acknowledgement that many moderates come from tightly contested districts.

Early returns have been positive.

When Obama needed support from his own party to pass landmark trade legislation, he turned to the New Democrat Coalition. The group mustered just enough votes — 28 in total — to clear fast-track trade authority through Congress, despite opposition from the party’s left, including Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. It was the latest — and most controversial — instance of the group flexing its muscles.

And now moderates are staking a claim to other economic polices normally dominated by Republicans. Reps. John Delaney of Maryland and Scott Peters of California introduced a “dynamic scoring” bill — an issue normally favored by Republicans — that would encourage budget scorekeepers to score tax cuts favorably to reevaluate how Congress spends money on infrastructure, research and education. Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes is one of the most outspoken advocates for reforming the Dodd-Frank financial regulations bill, which he supports, and Delaney has worked to find common ground on foreign tax issues with both parties.

“There is a real opportunity to work with the administration and to work with the majority to try and get [our issues] done,” said California Rep. Ami Bera, a member of the group. “There is an appetite.”

Read More on POLITICO.

As the GOP Debates Begin, Three Factors Explain This Year’s Presidential Clown Car

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

This year’s overcrowded field of 17 GOP presidential candidates may be an amazing spectacle, but it really should come as no surprise. The so-called “presidential clown car” is parked at the intersection of three distinct rings in the circus of Republican politics: the party’s internal unhinging, an extraordinarily wide-open political field, and the electoral unfettering of billionaires.

In the past, it was the Democrats whose presidential politics were messy and unpredictable. The party catapulted previously obscure candidates such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama over the heads of more senior figures and right into the Oval Office. Yet once in office, Democratic presidents could expect little electoral deference from their fellow party members. In 1948 and 1968, segregationist Southern “Dixiecrats” ran as third-party candidates against fellow Democrats. In 1980, Ted Kennedy, via a primary challenge, did almost as much damage as the Ayatollah Khomeini to Carter’s reelection bid.

By comparison, Republican presidential politics was once as stable as the gold-standard dollar. For over a half century starting in 1952, every Republican ticket for president and vice president (except for 1964) included someone named Nixon, Bush or Dole. Presidential nominations almost always went to whoever had most patiently waited his turn in line. Indeed, nominees were generally household names who had been runners-up from prior nomination races, including Ronald Reagan (1980), the elder George Bush (1988), Bob Dole (1996), John McCain (2008) and Mitt Romney (2012).

Today, Republicans’ love of crown princes hasn’t entirely disappeared: runners-up from two prior primary battles — Rick Santorum from 2012 and Mike Huckabee from 2008 — have joined this year’s fray. And, of course, the field also includes the next-in-line member of the Bush family and the son of another previous contender, Rand Paul.

But as the overflowing debate stage will demonstrate, there are about another dozen active Republican hopefuls. And not withstanding the ludicrous Trump sideshow, no viable candidate is polling above the low teens or could be said to have broken out of the pack. This is all very untidy by the once orderly standards of the Republican Party.

Part of what ails Republican politics, as is so often the case, has a three word name: The Tea Party, which has taken to running little-known insurgents in primaries against more established (and more moderate) politicians. In 2014, Virginia GOP primary voters dumped House Majority Leader Eric Cantor like so many tea leaves into Boston Harbor. Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was similarly “primaried” from the right, though he pulled through. And Speaker John Boehner always seems one reasonable statement or constructive compromise away from being toppled by Tea Party factions in the House.

And so, Republican primary voters have largely been liberated from their party’s longstanding traditions of deference and hierarchy. This shift is fueling the current free-for-all of governors, senators and several others with few discernible presidential qualifications. The political novice Ben Carson suiting up as commander-in-chief? The previously unelected Carly Fiorina starting out a political career at the very top? The noxious Donald Trump downsizing to smaller living quarters at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Hey, somebody has to win this thing.

Fanning the flames is another under-appreciated statistic: This is only the second presidential election since 1928 without an incumbent president or vice president running for office. Aside from 2008, every one of those other twenty presidential elections included either an elected president seeking reelection (12 times); a sitting president who had succeed from the vice presidency (3 times); or the incumbent vice president (5 times).

All of this creates an exceptionally wide-open political field for both parties. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton can perhaps be considered a quasi-incumbent, being so closely linked to two prior Democratic administrations. But on the Republican side, none of the current candidates (Jeb Bush included) has held high-level office in a prior presidential administration.

For GOP aspirants, then, the slate is about as clean as slates can be – so why not try one’s luck in 2016? And in a post-Citizens United world, any alluringly extreme candidate who can catch the eye of a deep-pocketed tycoon will have the resources to stay in the game far longer than in the past.

Still, there is a spark of hope for Democrats who miss their party’s glory days of chaos during the primaries and noble defeat in the general election. Senator Bernie Sanders — previously unknown nationally and not even a registered Democrat — is steadily gaining traction against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Thus Republicans should have faith: their opponents may yet find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is cross-posted on the Huffington Post.

Does the FCC’s Open Internet Order Survive a Cost-Benefit Test? These 13 Economists Don’t Think So.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Yesterday, a stellar constellation of regulatory economists—including three economists affiliated with the Progressive Policy Institute—submitted an amicus brief to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, demonstrating that the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order failed a cost-benefit test.

How could this happen?

When proposing a remedy to address a perceived market failure, a regulatory agency may fail a cost-benefit test in three ways. First, the agency can overstate the benefits of its proposed remedy. Second, the agency can understate the costs of its proposed remedy.

Third, and a bit less obvious, the agency can ignore a less-restrictive alternative that would generate the same purported benefits but at a lower cost, thereby rendering its proposed remedy inefficient. For example, if the net benefits of a proposed remedy are $10 million per year, but a less-restrictive alternative generates net benefits of $15 million, then the proposal fails a cost-benefit test, even though the proposed remedy would have generated benefits in excess of costs.

The FCC committed all three errors in its Open Internet Order (OIO). As Chris Cillizza of the Post says in his recurring award for Worst Week in Washington, “Congrats, or something.”

The amicus brief explains in great detail how the FCC committed the first two errors.

In terms of overstating benefits, the OIO fails to consider that the profitability of (and thus the incentive to engage in) discriminatory conduct vis-à-vis content providers depends on whether the Internet service provider (ISP) could generate higher profits from the promoted (affiliated) products to cover the lost margins from departing broadband customers. The anticompetitive behavior feared by the Commission has simply not come to pass, which explains why the OIO is hard-pressed to cite any recent examples of consumer harm. A very limited number of service disruptions or degradations have actually occurred—among literally millions of opportunities for such behavior—and many of these have been dealt with expeditiously through private negotiations.

And in terms of understating costs, the OIO ignores or dismisses the economic evidence of the impact of Title II on investment in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and thereby dismisses the very real threat to ISP investment. Rather than ground its findings on economic scholarship, the OIO relies instead on the casual empiricism of an advocacy group that operates outside of the constraints of academic reputations, to reach the extraordinary conclusion that telco investment was “55 percent higher under the period of Title II’s application” than in the later period. These results hinge on which years are included in the Title II era: If one includes the years 1999 and 2000 as part of the pre-2005 period, then removal of Title II appears to have caused a decline in Bell investment. But those early years are associated with the dot.com boom and long-haul fiber glut, and it is difficult to remove Bell investments in backbone infrastructure from the capex figures.

The amicus brief spends less time on the third element of cost-benefit, largely due to a 4000-word limitation. So more on that here.

The OIO casually dismisses a less-restrictive alternative for handling paid priority disputes—namely, case-by-case enforcement—as being “too cumbersome” to enforce, despite the fact that: (1) the 2015 OIO itself embraces case-by-case review to address interconnection disputes and other conduct such as zero-rating; (2) the 2010 Open Internet Order embraced case-by-case to address paid priority disputes; (3) the FCC’s May 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would have permitted ISPs and content providers to engage in “individualized bargaining” subject to ex post review; and (4) the FCC relies upon case-by-case to adjudicate discrimination complaints against traditional video distributors. Why is this conduct different from all other conduct?

Recognizing this disparate treatment of paid priority and interconnection, the OIO argues that case-by-case enforcement “is an appropriate vehicle for enforcement where disputes are primarily over commercial terms and that involve some very large corporations. . . .” (paragraph 29). But interconnection disputes can involve small content providers as well. And if the concern is an asymmetry in litigation resources, the case-by-case regime can level the playing field by shifting evidentiary burdens and providing interim relief.

Indeed, the 2010 Open Internet Order considered and rejected a “flat ban” on paid priority in favor of a case-by-case approach; embracing the ban in 2015 presumably pushed the FCC towards its dreaded reclassification decision. This dramatic policy reversal begs the question: What happened in the intervening five years that caused the Commission to lose confidence in case-by-case adjudication for paid priority? The OIO does not give an answer.

It would seem that an overt and pronounced shift in regulatory policy would necessitate a clear and confident finding that such an alternative policy approach toward the Internet would produce better results—more innovation, more investment, and more consumer benefits. When viewed with an economic lens, the OIO fails a basic cost-benefit analysis.

PRESS RELEASE: PPI Statement On Significant Progress of TPP Negotiations

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON— Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute, today released the following statement after top trade officials from the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries on Friday announced significant progress on the historic trade agreement:

“PPI welcomes Friday’s announcement that the United States and its 11 negotiating partners have made significant progress on the substance of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement.

“Modern trade agreements like TPP have significant potential to boost inclusive growth here in America, while also setting high standards for a broad swath of the global economy in such key areas as open rulemaking, environmental protection, labor rights and digital commerce. But to achieve these results and other important benefits for the United States, it is critical that these agreements are done right.

“We appreciate the continuing efforts of U.S. negotiators, the Administration, and trade supporters in Congress in working towards the conclusion of an agreement that is the best possible deal for America. We look forward to reviewing a completed agreement. And we are particularly grateful to Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Congressman Ron Kind (D-Wisc.), and other pro-trade Democrats for their leadership in writing unprecedented new rules that will assure an extensive, informed and transparent debate on an eventual TPP deal.”

U.S. News & World Report: Put Infrastructure Back on Track

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Highway Trust Fund is a good first step to funding infrastructure, but private investment is key.

Before we celebrate pending congressional action over funding for the Highway Trust Fund – be it a short-term deal now or long-term deal later – consider that the United States needs about nine times that amount annually to get U.S. infrastructure back on track.

The Department of Transportation estimates that we need to spend between $124 and $150 billion a year just to maintain our current, decrepit, system. In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that to actually improve the quality of current infrastructure, the price tag rises to about $450 billion annually, or over $3.6 trillion, by 2020.

HighwayTrustFundFallsShort The Highway Trust Fund supports about $50 billion in infrastructure projects annually. This is known as the infrastructure funding gap – the country needs to spend a lot more on infrastructure than current policy funding allows for. No matter how you calculate the need, the heralded Highway Trust Fund starts to look more like legislative symbolism than pragmatic policy solution.

There is broad bipartisan agreement around the importance of infrastructure and the Highway Trust Fund, but little consensus on how to pay for it. This political gridlock, and overall federal and state belt-tightening, means there’s a need for new ways to pay for infrastructure.

That’s where the private sector comes in. They have the resources to help fill this gap and modernize America’s infrastructure.

There are large benefits to modernizing. New research from economists Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Michael Mandel for the McGraw Hill Financial Global Institute (which I run), “Dynamic Scoring and Infrastructure Spending,” shows that infrastructure investment has a spending multiplier that yields a significant contribution to gross domestic product, ranging from a conservative estimate of 0.8 to 1.6 times the original amount invested. A survey of existing studies shows that $100 billion in infrastructure spending would contribute between $62.5 billion and $165.5 billion over 20 years, with $12.5 billion to $33.1 billion in new tax revenue receipts.RoadsAreDeteriorating

Investments in public infrastructure projects consistently produce stable, long-term returns on capital. Institutional investors, looking to match these qualities with their own long-term liabilities, are eager to leverage low interest rates and an economic upswing to invest in U.S. infrastructure. By one estimate, there could be as much as $7 trillion available around the world for long-term investment in U.S. infrastructure. With new financial products like Build America Bonds and the proposed Qualified Public Infrastructure Bonds, this untapped capital reserve is waiting to close the U.S. infrastructure deficit.

Given the critical importance of rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, the significant returns on investment and the contribution to national output, restarting the Highway Trust Fund is a good first step. But let’s be clear-eyed about the large funding gap and the potential sources for filling it.

This piece was cross posted from U.S. News & World Report.

Forbes: Congress Holds The Key To More Broadband Competition

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Are we getting enough broadband competition? And if not, where should we look for a new Internet access provider to keep broadband prices in check and to spur incumbents to increase speeds?

The answer may be staring you in the face . . . assuming you are reading this from a wireless device. Even if you’re looking at a desktop, your smartphone is likely within reach. And therein lies the key to broadband competition.

This week the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on “Wireless Broadband and the Future of Spectrum Policy.” With luck, policymakers will see the connection between more spectrum and broadband competition.

With the recent transition from third-generation to 4G, wireless networks now offer speeds—between 30 and 40 Mbps down—that are comparable to the average speeds attainable on a cable connection. And 5G wireless speeds promise to be even faster.

A super-charged wireless broadband offering would force DSL providers to upgrade to fiber, which in turn would cause cable operators to enhance their speeds.

When confronted with the notion of wireless-wireline substitution, the naysayers point to data limitations on wireless plans. But those limits are there to preserve the wireless experience given the constraints associated with commercially available spectrum. Relieve those constraints and wireless becomes an even closer substitute to wireline broadband (as those pesky data limits are likely raised).

How much additional spectrum is needed? A recent study estimates that the United States will need more than 350 MHz of additional licensed spectrum to support projected commercial mobile wireless demand, which represents a 50 percent increase in the supply of licensed broadcast spectrum.

And the source of this newfound spectrum? After the broadcasters’ spectrum, the next tranche of beachfront property would come from federal agencies, which have little incentive to give up the goods.

To align the broadcasters’ interests with those of wireless consumers, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) came up with a novel idea—an “incentive auction” that permits broadcasters to share a portion of the proceeds from the sale; those who don’t participate will now be forced to explain to shareholders why they can put the spectrum to greater use.

Economists have a fancy word for this problem—some firms (think polluters) don’t “internalize” the cost of their actions. Sitting on valuable spectrum, while not as onerous as polluting, doesn’t cost an agency a dime. The key is to make these agencies internalize the cost of their actions (or inaction), as the FCC is about to do for the broadcasters.

There may be some impediments to importing the incentive auction wholesale into the realm of government agencies. Although the Department of Defense was compensated for its relocation costs via a portion of the proceeds from the recent AWS-3 auction, paying an agency to surrender spectrum may not induce the same response as paying a profit-maximizing firm. Another complication is that some underutilized spectrum is shared by several agencies. Still other agency heads might think that an influx of auction revenues would be met with offsetting budget cuts by Congress.

Several clever ideas have been floated to overcome this inertia and force agencies to internalize the cost of their spectrum holdings. Some have suggested that underutilized spectrum count against an agency’s budget at market rates; if the agency doesn’t relinquish the spectrum or put it to greater use, the agency sees its budget chopped. Alternatively, we could encourage direct transactions (sales or leasing plans) between private carriers and government agencies, cutting the FCC and Congress out of the loop.

For those who doubt that an agency could ever respond to financial incentives, there’s always command-and-control techniques; for example, Congress could establish a spectrum czar tasked with shifting a certain percentage of spectrum from the public to the commercial sector every year.

Whichever way is ultimately chosen, we must expedite the process. A study by CTIA estimates that it takes a staggering 13 years on average for wireless spectrum to be deployed after the legislative and regulatory process begins.

That’s unacceptable, particularly given the critical role that wireless broadband plays in the economy. MIT economist Jerry Hausman estimated that the FCC’s delay in licensing the first spectrum for cellular service, which was caused by regulatory indecision, cost U.S. consumers $31 billion to $50 billion in lost welfare annually for between seven and ten years.

According to a 2010 FCC analysis, making 300 MHz available by 2014 would create over $100 billion in economic value for the country. Given the shift in traffic from wireline to wireless networks since 2010, and given the potential of wireless to be an even more effective restraint on wireline broadband prices, the social value of an infusion of the same magnitude today could be worth even more.

Congress should assign a task force comprised of engineers and economists to investigate the best approaches and present a plan in 90 days. The cost of delay is simply too much to bear.

This piece is cross-posted from Forbes.

What New Data Says about Debt-Free College

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

New data shows that young people who don’t fit within the current college system are facing great hardship in today’s workforce. This sheds valuable insight into the debt-free college debate, the charge for injecting more money into the federal student aid system at the top of Democrat’s 2016 election talking points.

With outstanding student loans topping $1.2 trillion, it’s little wonder that Democrats from Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Elizabeth Warren, and even Hillary Clinton are choosing to make tackling student debt a priority.

But student debt is the biggest problem for non-completers, who are increasingly unable to find decent work. Good job options have become so limited for non-graduates that the millions of young Americans who do not perfectly fit into the standard college mold now find themselves at an inherent disadvantage.

Indeed, my analysis of the latest labor force data highlights the plight of young people with some college but no degree. Since 2000, young people aged 16-24 neither enrolled in school nor in the labor force in June with some college or an Associate’s degree has increased by 700,000, or about 120%.  (Overall, young people aged 16-24 neither enrolled in school nor in the labor force in June increased by 1.4 million, or 27%, since 2000.) This chart considers June to get best sense of underlying trends in young people not in school.*

LaborForce

The implication is that we need better workforce preparedness options for those without a college degree, not simply debt-free college. The policies that comprise “debt-free college” merely throw more resources at propping up the current higher education system. For Bernie Sanders, that means free tuition. For Martin O’Malley, it means regulating tuition and expanding federal grants to schools and students. For Hillary Clinton, it’s just a conceptual endorsement that everyone should graduate college, and without debt.

Such policies are short-sighted. Rising student debt is a symptom not of inadequate federal funding, but of a broken federal financial aid system and of a higher education system in need of a shake-up. Greater transfers of money from taxpayers to students and schools will only exacerbate the challenges young people face in today’s labor market, by discouraging needed innovation in higher education. It quickly turns into an expensive and inefficient way to match workers with jobs.

Indeed, with the falling costs of information-sharing, thanks to the proliferation of high-speed broadband, and promising rise of innovation in education technology, there should be a downward pressure in college tuition. And with more people than ever graduating college, we should see an overall rise in real earnings. Yet college costs continue to rise at a faster pace than inflation, and the real earnings of young graduates have fallen 12% in the last decade.

By perpetuating the status-quo, policies that comprise debt-free college will not enhance opportunity and social mobility for those who need it – it will only widen the gap between young Americans with and without a degree. The barriers to innovation in higher education will remain, along with a lack of incentive to provide higher education more efficiently and effectively. Instead of introducing productivity-enhancing reforms to deal with rising enrollments and falling state funding, such as customized education or hybrid learning, higher education institutions can continue to use federal student aid to fill budget holes. In fact, groundbreaking new research from the NY Federal Reserve directly ties increases in federal student aid eligibility to increases in tuition.

Without serious reform, we cannot possibly hope to realize the enormous potential coming from the tech sector to transform the design and delivery of higher education and workforce training. Happily there is promise for real progress: a Senate HELP hearing last week focused on need for breaking down barriers to innovation in higher education. Still, until Democrats move past the “debt-free college” approach, and the notion that college degrees are the only answer, 2016-themed rhetoric on college affordability will be little more than that.

*Note: Enrollment and labor force figures in June have been comparable with those in July over time, for those who are interested in complete mid-summer analysis.

Financial Times: US income inequality rises up political agenda

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI President, Will Marshall, was quoted in a piece by Financial Times addressing how 2016 Presidential candidates are approaching strengthening the middle class and reducing income inequality:

Will Marshall, founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, says that Democrats too need to recognise the centrality of growth to any programme aimed at lifting middle class incomes. “Americans are aware that the private economy is ailing. Democrats don’t have a plausible theory for how they will unleash private sector growth,” he said. “Growth is the best antidote to inequality.”

Read the article in its entirety at Financial Times.

Chuka Umunna: These are “perilous times” for the Left

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On Wednesday, PPI hosted a lunch event at the National Press Club, “Progressives for Innovation and Growth: A Transatlantic Conversation,” on the economic challenge facing center-left parties. There, Chuka Umanna–Labour MP for Streatham and UK Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills– gave the following keynote address:

Thank you so much to Will and the entire Progressive Policy Institute team for organising this gathering and inviting me to speak.

It is no secret that, as we sought to modernise the UK Labour Party in the 1990s and transform ourselves from a party of protest to a credible party of government, we drew much inspiration from President Clinton and the New Democrats. PPI was an incubator of so many of the ideas of that time which took the New Democrats into office. You were the original modernisers.

Unfortunately my party is suffering a relapse. We were established to be the political wing of working people in Britain, resolutely focused on ensuring that everyone has a stake in the future. But, too often over the last five years in opposition we behaved like a party of protest. Now we urgently need to modernise again so people can trust us to govern once more and fulfil our historic covenant with those that founded our Party.

The Democrats here have bucked the trend of progressive parties across the advanced world – the trend of losing General Elections since the global financial crisis. So, coming back to tap into your thinking and exchange views is a no-brainer.

Progressive challenge

We meet at perilous times for centre left “progressive” parties, across advanced economies.

We face a resurgent Conservative Party who have told a story about debt and deficit issues following the global financial crisis far more effectively than progressives. That crisis was a failure of the laissez-faire economic model the centre right were in thrall to and yet they have made the political weather since 2008/9.

In opposing the centre-right, we also compete with the populist left – in particular on economic policy – and the populist right – on issues of identity and belonging. I will touch on all this shortly.

The Danish Social Democrats provide the most recent example. In spite of winning the largest share of the vote by a comfortable margin in their General Election last month, they are out of power.

In May the British Labour Party went down to our worst defeat since 1983. The defeat comprised different elements: a failure to tackle Conservative hegemony in the Southern regions of England outside London; a challenge by the populist right – in the form of the UK Independence Party – in seats in the North of England; and a wipe out at the behest of the Scottish Nationalist Party in Scotland. A perfect storm.

It was England primarily that delivered the Conservative majority. We must win back support in Scotland but will need to prioritise taking seats from the Conservatives in England if we are to win again.

I cannot cover all of the reasons for our defeat but I shall make some observations on what it says about the challenges progressives face across the advanced world in this era of globalisation.

Economic competence

In the immediate aftermath of our defeat people have naturally prayed in aid arguments to suit their particular political perspective. But most agree our perceived lack of economic competence severely compromised our ability to gain the support needed to win.

It wasn’t that people like the Conservatives more than us – far from it – but they felt voting Labour represented a risk in a world of uncertainty. This was particularly so amongst older voters who vote in greater numbers and amongst whom support for Labour since 2010 dropped by eight points.

How did this come to pass?

Rahm Emanuel famously said you should never let a serious crisis go to waste. Our Conservative rivals heeded this advice, as did many other centre right parties across Europe. The 2008/9 crash occurred under our watch and they used it ruthlessly to make their argument.

In the UK the crash had precipitated a recession that brought about a collapse in tax revenues leading to a deficit of 11.1 per cent of GDP in 2009/10. This was inevitably going to have to be dealt with once demand and growth returned. So from 2008 in opposition through to government in 2010, Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne reframed the economic debate in our country from one centred around the need for demand stimulus, to one resolutely focused on deficit and debt reduction.

Osborne argued that the Labour Government’s domestic spending before the crash had threatened our economy, and went on to argue – successfully – through the last Parliament, that if elected again, we would borrow, spend and tax more than the Conservatives. In so doing, our values were attacked too – they argued that not only were we incompetent, but that we were reckless and irresponsible too.

It was a ludicrous argument. We had reduced the national debt from 42 per cent of GDP in 1997 to 37 per cent of GDP on the eve of the crash in 2007. Before the crisis hit the deficit was small and unremarkable, averaging 1.3 per cent from 1997 to 2007 compared to 3.2 per cent beforehand under the previous 18 years of Tory rule. Indeed, so relaxed was Mr Osborne about borrowing before the crash that he signed up to our spending plans in 2007.

No matter. Mr Osborne’s argument stuck. As you would expect, he was greatly assisted by the fact that – notwithstanding the fact that the Labour government did not cause the crisis – the crash occurred whilst we were in office. But this was compounded because, once we left office, we failed to sufficiently concede where we went wrong – not properly regulating the banks and rebalancing our economy so we weren’t so exposed when the crash hit; in turn this compromised our ability to communicate what we got right.

At the general election just passed we had good policy to better balance our economy between sectors and regions, and to improve our trade position, but this was drowned out by the noise being made in relation to our alleged past economic misdemeanours on the deficit.

We were also not helped by some of the rhetoric the party deployed which gave the impression that we were against wealth creation and the productive businesses we would need to help us reform the economy if elected

Going forward we will need to ensure any weakness in our fiscal position is dealt with. It starts by asserting again and again that reducing our borrowing is a progressive endeavour – much as Democratic Nominee Bill Clinton did in 1992. We will need policy positions consistent with this goal. But, we must relate this to our values: compassion to ensure all have the support they need to get on; a responsibility to run sound public finances so we have resources to invest in people.

A vision of the future

We also failed to set out a vision of the future of our economy and our country that all could rally around.

Much of what we said focused on how terrible the country was and how we would regulate and clamp down on the many vested interests that we identified as being the source of all ills. This was hardly an optimistic, positive and patriotic story about what our country is and could be in the future. So, little wonder that even if voters did not believe the economy had improved under the Tories, too few believed it would get any better under Labour.

As globalisation has marched on and left too many behind, there has been an increasing sense in our country that the economy is not being run in the interests of people who work hard, play by the rules and do the right thing. In the absence of a positive narrative to explain how under a smart, enterprising Labour government every person and family would be empowered to take advantage of the opportunities the new digitally connected world can bring, social security and immigration dominated.

The social security bill was consistently one of the top three issues throughout the last Parliament. We spend more than £200bn a year – almost a third of all government spending – on the welfare state and this is not sustainable in the long run.

The Conservatives have chosen, in the main, to target entitlements the working poor and vulnerable receive to help make work pay – as the best way of reducing the social security bill. This is not something we would entertain. But we failed to set out an alternative way of reducing the benefits bill that convinced. In fact, we voted against every single social security measure put through parliament which helped reinforce the notion that we were not serious at getting to grips with this.

The price of successful politics is a constructive alternative and we did not have one. We need to rebuild support for our welfare state by setting out an alternative that puts notions of contribution and responsibility at its heart – where we all have a responsibility to work when we can and contribute in to the system if we want to we take out. That is what most people mean by fairness.

In addition to this, Ukip have sought to place blame for the lack of fairness in the system with immigrants. Many blue collar workers have understandably been troubled by the impact of immigration on our labour market. Whatever arguments are made by business of the necessity of immigration, for many blue collar workers it has meant more competition for jobs and the undercutting of their wages. The funding of public services has also been too slow to take account of population changes, putting local public services in some areas under pressure. This has proved toxic and provided fertile terrain for the populist right to use for their own divisive agenda.

The solution is not to pander to anti-immigrant sentiment or ignore it but to ensure proper enforcement of labour market rules and that new arrivals contribute into our system before they take out.

But, if we are to tackle the underlying causes of concern about social security and immigration, we must implement modern industrial strategies to stimulate innovation, grow the industries that produce better paying jobs, give people an education that match the needs of our industries, and give them the skills to connect into the digital global economy. Our education systems currently are simply not up to the job of giving workers the skills to adapt throughout their working lives to multiple career changes and constant technological advance. Again, we defended the status quo.

Above all, we need a system which doesn’t just treat people as commodities but where we value the work people do – the vocational and technical as well as the academic – and give them more of a say and greater employee engagement in the work place, fostering a greater sense of power and security in an uncertain, fast-changing world. This was not sufficiently central to our message – it must be for all progressive parties.

In other words there is work to do; real heavy lifting on the relationship between the economy and welfare if we are to win again.

National identity and belonging

The debate on immigration is symptomatic of the wider impact of globalisation.

People feel increasingly powerless in an age of globalisation that has brought about insecurity for so many. As a result, issues of belonging and cultural identity have taken on an increased importance as people search for security and solidarity in a fast changing world.

They are also increasingly mistrustful of a political elite who they believe is remote, passing laws and pulling levers at the centre, at a time when people want more power for themselves and autonomy for their communities. Progressives ignore this at our peril. If we do not address it, nationalism will flourish, which brings me to Scotland.

Although we were on the winning side of the argument in the September 2014 Scottish independence referendum, we lost 40 of our 41 seats there to the Scottish Nationalist Party at the General Election this year.

The rise of nationalism there was a factor that has deep, cultural roots. But, more than that, the constitutional issue of independence had become intertwined with issues of social justice. Whereas the English have tended to be slightly to the right of the Labour Party on economic matters, Scottish voters tend to the left of the party. The 2014 referendum campaign did not deliver the result the SNP desired, but it did give them the opportunity to set out a vision of the kind of independent Scotland they wished to create. In 2015 they successfully argued that an independent Scotland would be more progressive, stand up and protect them in a changing world.

In a sense, what we are witnessing – as the psephologist who came closest to predicting the UK result, Professor John Curtis of Strathclyde University, has argued – is the end of British electoral politics as we know it. He argues that the first break came in the 1970s when the links between Northern Ireland’s politics and the rest of the UK’s were broken; he argues we have just witnessed the second break where Scotland’s politics takes on a different character to that of the rest of UK, powered by issues of national belonging and cultural identity.

I think we can maintain the union but we should embrace people’s natural desire in our different nations to have more autonomy over their own affairs and give voice to the different cultural identities in the UK, whilst maintaining the benefits that the pooling and sharing of resources across the constituent parts of the UK brings. This is why I believe we need a more federal structure for the nations of the UK with a new English Parliament to sit alongside bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need a federal Labour Party too which recognises the unique character of each nation.

With a federal UK structure no nation will feel left out; each nation’s voice can be properly heard whilst maintaining a UK parliament that will be stronger as a result. To facilitate this we should establish a Constitutional Convention with all elements of political and civil society willing to participate, to settle this issue this Parliament. This is bread and butter for you here where the constitution takes pride of place. It would represent radical but much needed change in our country. It would be constructive of our renewal – government of the people, by the people, for the people perhaps.

Conclusion

I want to conclude in making a final observation. Our offer and the debate during the election was far too parochial.

If one considers what has had the greatest impact economically on people’s wallets in the first half of this year, it was the price of oil per barrel coming down to around $58 – an international phenomenon. The multinationals we seek not only to work with but ensure pay their fair share and play by rules, know no borders. And the biggest challenges we face, be it environmental or global terrorism, cross borders in a way they did not before.

This says to me that we can only ultimately build a fairer more equal world in an era of globalisation if we as progressives become far more organised and co-ordinated at a supra national level. For the UK that starts with maintaining our membership of the European Union in the coming EU referendum, but it extends beyond that to other institutions like the UN, the WTO. A better networked state in the modern age will be better placed to help its people thrive in this new era.

I look forward to working with you, in common cause and for the Common Good in the years ahead.

 

 

Wall Street Journal: Obama’s Big Idea for Small Savers: ‘Robo’ Financial Advice

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

If you’re a Democratic policy maker worried about retirement savings for the little guy, would you deny millions of small savers access to financial advisers in ways that could cost them $80 billion in the next market downturn? Would you ask working families to pay more to keep the adviser they have?

The obvious answer to both is no. But the White House and the Labor Department have teamed up to propose a new “fiduciary rule” on brokers and advisers serving individual retirement account investors, which would produce precisely these unintended consequences.

The White House starts with good intentions—a concern that too many Americans are unprepared for retirement, and need to save more, and invest wisely. But instead of urging Americans to save, the administration has launched a campaign against a phony villain. If you’re not on a path to a secure retirement, the White House implies, it’s because evil financial advisers are ripping you off.

Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal.

The California Tech/Info Boom: How It Is Spreading Across the State

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Here’s an astounding fact. Since the recovery started in 2009, California businesses have created 1.5 million new private sector jobs. That puts California number one in private sector job creation among all states, slightly ahead of second place Texas, and more than double that of third place Florida. Moreover, total job creation in California since 2009 exceeds that of Germany, Europe’s largest and most successful economy.

How can this spectacular performance be explained? The answer: creativity and innovation. Since 2009, the Golden State’s economy has ridden the power of the sizzling tech/info revolution. From mobile to social media, to online video and the Internet of Things, California-based companies are leading the way.

This paper has two main goals. First, we document how the tech/info boom is helping propel the California economy. We carefully define the tech/info sector, building on our previous studies of California and other tech hubs around the world. We then show that the tech/info sector has directly accounted for more than 30% of the increase in real wage payments in California. These gains have boosted tax revenues and helped California run a budget surplus. In addition, the strong growth in California’s tech/info sector has translated into faster non-tech job growth than the rest of the country.

Download “2015.07-Mandel_The-California-Tech-Info-Revolution_How-It-Is-Spreading-Across-the-State”

PPI Statement on Iran Nuclear Deal

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall today released the following statement after the announcement of a landmark nuclear agreement between the United States, Iran, and five other world powers:

“Even before today’s nuclear deal with Iran was struck, President Obama’s critics accused him of giving away the store. Now the burden of proof falls on them to show why no deal is better than this deal.

“No deal means no constraints on Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and produce plutonium, giving it two paths to nuclear weapons. How will perpetuating this dangerous status quo make America or its allies safer?

“In contrast, the agreement reached in Vienna today between major world powers and Iran closes both paths to the bomb for the next decade. It also extends the embargo on missiles and bars Iran from designing warheads and testing nuclear detonators. Crucially, Iran has agreed to submit to more intrusive inspections than required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“There’s no question, in short, that the deal moves Iran back from the nuclear threshold. Capping nearly two years of hard bargaining, it is a major diplomatic achievement for President Obama and his two Secretaries of State: Hillary Clinton and especially the indefatigable John Kerry.

“But it’s also a victory for collective security. The United States alone could not have wrung concessions from Iran without strong backing from its negotiating partners, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. Congress needs to keep that fact in mind as it takes up the accord. Unilateral action by U.S. lawmakers risks cracking the extraordinary united front the international community has maintained against Iran’s nuclear program.

“The agreement is far from perfect—no diplomatic deal ever is. Large questions remain about how and when sanctions on Iran will be lifted, and what happens 10 years from now when Iran resumes nuclear enrichment with more modern equipment, ostensibly to fuel civilian nuclear power. But the President has made undeniable progress, and he deserves progressives’—and the country’s—support.”

# # #

RealClearBooks: Who Will Break the Spell of Polarization?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Republicans are frequently blamed for America’s intensifying political polarization, and not without cause. Surveys show that they have moved farther to the right than Democrats have to the left and are less disposed to political compromise. The GOP also benefits more from polarization, in that it induces paralysis in Washington. For conservatives who see the federal government as a wealth- and liberty-destroying Leviathan, political obstruction is no vice.

Yet liberals seem to be warming to the new politics of polarization, too. Just as anti-government populism animates the right, anti-corporate populism is ascendant on the left. Populist tribunes like Senator Elizabeth Warren and New York mayor Bill DeBlasio are preaching a gospel of economic justice through redistribution, while Senator Bernie Sanders is peddling his version of European-style social democracy to ecstatic crowds on the campaign trail.

Can America really be moving simultaneously to the right and the left? Where have all the moderates gone? Are we doomed to political stalemate, or will one of the parties muster a durable majority for its governing vision?

How we came to this impasse, and how it might be broken, is the subject of Shattered Consensus: The Rise and Decline of America’s Postwar Political Order, by conservative scholar James Piereson. Progressives shouldn’t be put off by the author’s conservative leanings; this elegantly written book offers a perceptive if not always convincing guide to how U.S. conservatives understand themselves and their liberal opponents.

Piereson traces our present deadlock to the end of the broad political consensus forged in the crucible of Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. He sees the New Deal realignment as the latest of three “regimes” that have shaped the nation’s political evolution (Jefferson’s revolution of 1800 and the Civil War having set the stage for long stretches of Democratic and Republican ascendance, respectively). At the height of the postwar consensus, liberal ideas dominated U.S. political thought. The rout of laissez-faire economics and isolationism shoved conservatives to the margins, reducing their views, in Lionel Trilling’s memorable phrase, to “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” Americans voiced high levels of trust in government, which after all had saved the free-enterprise system, provided basic social protections for workers and the elderly, and organized the great victory over the Axis powers. Liberal historians like Louis Hartz and Richard Hofstadter proclaimed a national consensus on basic political values—an underlying “American creed” to which both parties adhered, even as they offered varying interpretations of personal liberal and equality.

Reading Piereson brought to mind a conversation I had years ago with another eminent scholar of the consensus school, Seymour Martin Lipset. In postwar Europe, he said, elections were usually contests between parties with distinct ideologies (e.g., Democratic Socialists vs. Christian Democrats) and separate social bases (working class vs. the bourgeoisie). In contrast, he likened U.S. parties to Macy’s and Gimbel’s—rival department stores competing for the same customers.

For better or worse, that dynamic has changed. Traditionally heterogeneous coalitions, U.S. parties are becoming more ideologically cohesive. Republican moderates are now a weak minority and liberal Republicans are virtually extinct. The parties tailor their appeals to different “customers”—the Republicans mainly white, working-class, and older voters, the Democrats young, minority, and highly educated voters. And it’s not just the parties; U.S. voters seem to want to live among people with a similar political outlook, and they’re sorting themselves accordingly.

As Piereson notes, the collapse of a reigning political paradigm makes it hard to cobble together majorities and govern. He wants a government capable of reducing public debt, stimulating economic growth, and reining in entitlement spending. Progressives would add other things to his list, but in either case, America needs a functioning government, even as left and right battle over its proper size and scope.

Piereson argues, plausibly, that the country is ripe for a “fourth revolution” that will realign U.S. politics around a broad majority. Which party is most likely to bring it about?

Here, the author’s analytical acuity deserts him, and partisanship takes the wheel. Take his account of the rise of “punitive liberalism” in the 1960s and 1970s. As liberal reformism curdled into hatred of U.S. society, Piereson suggests, liberals used government to push busing and other measures intended to “punish the nation for its past crimes.” Well, yes, some radicals spelled America with a “K” and called for revolution. But mainstream liberals fought nobly to advance civil rights; waged war on poverty, with less success; defended democracy against Soviet communism; tackled industrial pollution for the first time; and, ended a deeply divisive war in Vietnam. Did they leverage an affluent society’s sense of guilt to achieve these goals? Sure, but their aims were plainly ameliorative, not punitive.

Similarly skewed is Piereson’s caricature of President Obama as a ruthless partisan determined to foist a social-democratic agenda on the country. In fact, Obama ran a philosophically vague campaign in 2008, emphasizing his credentials as a “post-partisan” outsider who could rise above the toxic polarization in Washington. He did campaign on expanding health-care coverage—an idea that enjoyed majority support in 2008—but the plan he proposed once in office was a huge disappointment to the left, which wanted then, as it wants now, a single-payer plan.

Piereson also accuses Obama of “disdaining any compromise with Republicans over budget issues.” In fact, Obama sought a grand fiscal bargain after the 2010 elections, but congressional Republicans were mainly interested in killing Obamacare, even at the risk of government shutdowns and default. Deals were struck to whittle down the deficit, but generally on conservative grounds—as liberals bitterly noted—since most of the savings came from domestic spending cuts rather than from tax hikes. Any dispassionate observer of this president (and I speak as a Hillary supporter in 2008) has to admit that pragmatism, not ideology, is Obama’s political lodestar.

Piereson skips over the 1990s, possibly because the Clinton years belie his narrative of a Democratic party captured by liberal elites and alienated from Middle America. The advent of the New Economy and the Internet; vibrant growth and full employment; steep reductions in poverty and welfare dependence; falling crime and teen pregnancy rates; and, for good measure, a balanced budget—this recent stretch of effective progressive governance is conspicuously absent from Shattered Consensus.

Piereson hits nearer the mark in his account of Democrats’ current obsession with inequality and redistributionist politics, which he thinks will trigger a voter backlash against higher taxes and more intrusive government. One Republican presidential candidate who seems to agree is Jeb Bush, who has made 4 percent growth his campaign calling card. Whatever happens next year, Piereson is right to identify slow economic growth as the main challenge confronting America’s next “political regime.”

And plenty of pragmatic Democrats share that view: Hillary Clinton said as much in an interview with Charlie Rose, though she hasn’t emphasized the point recently. But imagine a 2016 presidential race that centers not on the ritual flaying of big government or big business, but on which party has the best ideas for reviving U.S. economic dynamism and shared prosperity. That would be a welcome sign that, consensus or no, our democracy is working again.

Dynamic Scoring and Infrastructure Spending

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

We review recent trends in federal infrastructure spending and the policy case for dynamic scoring of revenue and spending legislation. The use of dynamic scoring depends upon the magnitudes of near‐term impacts on economy‐wide spending and the long‐run impacts on productivity. We conclude that federal infrastructure investment should be dynamically scored.

A simple example suggests that $100 billion in new infrastructure spending could generate an extra $62.5 to $165.5 billion in national output over the next twenty years, based on a range of scenarios. Assuming a 20 percent effective tax rate, this $100 billion infrastructure investment would generate a 20‐year revenue offset ranging from $12.5 to $33.1 billion.

Download “201507-MHFIGI-Dynamic-Scoring-AAF-PPI-Final”