The Red Queen’s Race

This week, I got one After Final case on my Expedited docket, which I dealt with swiftly, and two amendments on my Amended docket. I have been working on the amendment that I already had, but I have not quite managed to finish it (almost, but a problem filling out the forms arose, so this may have to wait until I can get some IT assistance). In consequence, I now have a total of three amendments on my Amended docket.

James K. Galbraith Lecture, Part Two

On Thursday, Dr. Galbraith spoke well of the late Professor Mason Gaffney, whom I also admire; he also spoke well of so-called Modern Monetary Theory, which he described as having achieved influence without being academic economics. My own view is that is good reason for some notions not to be respectable in academic economics.

He said that regulation is needed in society, and gave the example of China, where lettuce is generally not on sale, because people won’t buy it, as they cannot be confident that it was grown under minimally hygienic conditions, except that Chinese do buy imported American lettuce at Sam’s Club, with labels saying that it was inspected by the USDA. The Chinese have figured out how to import regulations of the foreign buyers of Chinese products, making those products also safe and reliable for the domestic market, he said.

Dr. Galbraith is in favor of direct government action to deal with global warming, and against price signals like the carbon tax which some economists favor. When they tried that in France, there was mayhem in the streets (by the Gillets Jaune). Rural French were not willing to tolerate a tax on diesel fuel, which hit them hard, because there was no way they could convert their trucks and tractors to solar or wind power in the short run. (My own thought is that he had a point, but might people not also resent a government which ran their lives directly, taxed them for government Green projects, and demanded that they buy electric tractors to be plugged into solar arrays?).

He is in favor of a more progressive income tax, higher taxes on capital gains, and the estate/gift tax. The gift tax ought to be higher to limit the ability of rich people to pass on their money to their children and grandchildren. They would, in his view, do more good either by paying more in taxes, or giving their fortunes away to charitable foundations. He does not, however, favor the annual wealth tax supported by Senator Elizabeth Warren and others, which he said would be a nightmare to assess.

He does favor taxing land values, including such things as oil leases and broadcast licenses. He regards land value taxation as viable, so he and I have something in common, despite our differences.

To be continued.

James K. Galbraith Lecture, Part Three

After presenting his talk, Dr. Galbraith took questions. Someone asked him: elites funnel government money into their pockets, and benefit by regulations gamed to favor them. How to cut the Gordian knot? He said that he is favor of antitrust enforcement, and, if I understood correctly, against excessively big business, not just actual monopolies. He said that freedom to communicate on platforms is being curtailed.

(I don’t agree. Antitrust can be abused, and when LiveJournal tried to curtail my freedom to communicate on their platform, I left it for Dreamwidth. People who aren’t happy with Facebook or Twitter can do similarly, so long as the government doesn’t dictate what can be said anywhere, and so long as regulations which are difficult and expensive to comply with do not entrench a few giants.)

In answer to someone’s question, Dr. Galbraith said that he has not read Henry George’s The Science of Political Economy.

He said that there had been a global turning point in 1971, with floating exchange rates, and further in 1973. In 1979-1980, high interest rates led to the debt crisis, setting many developing nations back. He said that someone told him that if one Latin American country had defaulted on its debts, the Reagan Administration (!) would have nationalized the banks. Instead, there was pressure on debtors to pay and reschedule. He also said that there was a proposal for a New International Economic Order (I remember), to stabilize commodity prices, similar to what the Roosevelt Administration had done domestically during the Great Depression. This didn’t happen.

(My view is that it’s a good thing this didn’t happen. I don’t approve of the New Deal program to limit crop production, meaning fewer jobs for Okies and less food at higher prices for city dwellers, and I don’t approve of the EU’s agricultural policy of buying up farm products and enriching agricultural landowners. There would have been grave difficulties in trying to implement something like this on a global scale, for one thing. For another, money extracted from taxpayers in prosperous countries would likely have ended up in the pockets of latifundium owners and corrupt governments, rather than making rural laborers much better off,)

Dr. Galbraith pointed out that austerity depends on whether it’s your own political base that was to tighten its belts. True.

Responding to what Dr. Galbraith had said about regulation, I had typed in a question about Brazilian bank regulation: according to something I recall reading, Brazilian law holds the directors personally liable financially if the bank fails; therefore, Brazilian banks operate prudently. When someone read this to Dr. Galbraith, he said that he didn’t know about the matter.

Dan Sullivan, joining in the discussion, said that “neoliberals” should be called “neolibertarians.” Unlike the original classical liberals, they aren’t enemies of privilege.

Apropos of something, Dr. Galbraith said that although the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations did some things wrong, when the Savings and Loan crisis struck, they prosecuted a large number of crooks, including the infamous Charles Keating. After the 2007-2008 crash, the Obama administration didn’t prosecute the white collar bank robbers.

And that is the end of my notes.