Tuesday, April 22, 2014

"One of the Oldest Mistakes in Economics"

Allister Heath:
One secular shift that has made the plight of the young stand out even more is that our oldest workers have done remarkably well. There has been a boom in folk of pensionable age remaining or rejoining the workforce... Far more jobs have been created for pensioners during that time than have been filled by young people. 
This doesn't mean that older people have "stolen" the jobs of the young; the lump of labour fallacy is one of the oldest mistakes in economics. There is no set number of jobs, to be divvied up between young and old; all should theoretically be able to find work and in many cases an increase in the supply of labour also increases its demand. But the numbers are another reminder of how badly young people have fared.
Shorter Allister Heath: It happened but theoretically it isn't supposed to happen and in many cases it doesn't happen therefore it didn't happen.

Losing American Hearts And Minds

That is the title of a column in the Washington Post of April 21, 2014 (just barely yesterday) by editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, signed openly, in which he argues that President Obama is doing things that are popular in the short term, but lose him American hearts and minds in the longer term.  He starts on foreign policy, mentioning pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and avoiding going into Syria, which supposedly involves "the emerging picture of an America in retreat, and  a leader half-heartedly committed to promoting liberty," which he claims is "not what they [Americans] are looking for."  He may be right, but this is not the part of his piece I wish to dump on hard.

That is when he shifts to domestic policy, which is the main topic of the column.  Here we find that Obama has also failed in the long run, even though he is apparently pleasing public opinion in the short run, by not accepting what "The Bowles-Simpson commission had called for," (higher taxes and slower growth in Medicare and Social Security spending).  Shame on him, even though indeed Hiatt recognizes that his non-acceptance is popular.

Now, I first want to remind everybody of a point that Dean Baker relentlessly emphasizes repeatedly (that is how he does things, good old Dean), that the Bowles-Simpson Commission never actually issued a report.  Talking about what it "called for" or "recommended" or anything else of the sort is simply rank nonsense.  They never came to an agreement because a substantial proportion of its Republican members, led by Paul Ryan, refused to accept the deal of higher taxes for spending cuts or restraints, because of the tax part.  They simply refused to accept any higher taxes, period.  And that was that.  It is true that after this failure of the commission to come to an agreement, Bowles and Simpson themselves issued a set of recommendations that Hiatt accurately characterizes, but this was not a report of the commission, just those two men. But Hiatt simply ignores this and goes on about how Obama somehow missed this great opportunity to "have empowered Republicans in Congress - the Roy Blounts and Bob Corkers - who want to work with Democrats to get things done," even if what they want to get done is silly and unpopular, ignoring that the Paul Ryans outnumbered such folk, to the extent they were really willing to do anything anyway.

As it is, Hiatt grants Obama many points.  He recognizes that indeed Obama supporting something supported by some Republicans may have simply led to that undermining any serious support among Republicans for  such proposals.  He does not mention ACA, but that is the prime example: an originally Republican proposal that in the end received zero GOP votes once Obama came out for it.

He even recognizes that maybe Obama "had no serious Republican partner," which sure as heck looks like it was the case, with again the ACA case paramount.  Obama (and Congressional Dems) negotiated with many GOP congressional members on it, giving them many policy victories, but in the end failing to obtain a single vote from them in its favor. 

Hiatt says he should have been more like LBJ in this time of nostalgia for him as one of those "other presidents would have given it more of a try."  Well, indeed at various times during debt crisis negotiations, Obama even hinted at accepting changes in the Social Security COLA in exchange for some tax increases on the wealthy, the deal that Hiatt so very much wants from his Bowles-Simpson fixation.  But, whenever Obama would float such proposals, they would get shot down by both  sides, Republicans for the tax increase and Dems for the COLA change.  But to Hiatt, he just did not try hard enough, thereby losing American hearts and minds in the long run.

Eventually Hiatt almost throws in his hat on the bottom line, "that Obama was right to steer clear of the 'austerity' of Simpson-Bowles," only then to deny that austerity is what is involved.  He then goes on to paint his picture of doom with baby boomer entitlements gobbling up money for "national defense, national parks, colleges, railroads, Head Start," and so on.  Never does he come to grips with what is really driving the longer term gloomy cost projections, which is health care costs, period.

Indeed, earlier this evening I heard it reconfirmed in a talk by Alice Rivlin, also long one of the VSPs pushing for such bipartisan deals, even praising Bowles-Simpson at one point and also noting her having founded the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, a fountainhead  of rational and careful budgeteering along VSP lines.  I cannot criticize her on this, particularly as indeed her talk pinpointed health care cost projections as the main issue.  If these can be brought under control, then most of these bogeyman projections of deficit doom pretty much  go away, a point that good old Dean Baker also relentlessly harps on.  Unfortunately, she is not all that optimistic, despite noting some bending downwards of the healthcare cost curve in the wake of ACA, although warning this may be mostly due to the recession now coming to an end, maybe.  I asked her a very Dean Baker question: would not increasing immigration of healthcare professionals help this?  She agreed, but also noted how difficult politically it would be to pass such a reform.

So, I am willing to give Alice Rivlin credit for her tough realism, but Fred Hiatt just continues to wallow in some sort of fantasy land where cutting Social Security benefits is the proof of political manhood, and if only Obama had done this, by gosh by gum, he might even be able to lead the Dems to victory this fall in holding the Senate!  He is simply  a hopeless case, I fear.

Barkley Rosser

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Piketty’s Unlikely Path

I’ve only just started K21, so I won't comment on anything substantive, but the mini-autobiography he presents in the introduction got me thinking.  Here’s a guy who was a natural for cranking out theoretical models in economics.  His career was jet-propelled, and at an age when most econ grad students are sweating out their prelims he was already on the tenure track at MIT.  He could spend the rest of his life among the elite of the elite, playing cleverly with algebraic puzzles for a living.  Instead, he quit, returned to France, and spent the next decade digging through archives, laboriously piecing together datasets on income and wealth distribution.

Question: how likely is this to happen?  How many talented modelers, on a fast track to the highest reaches of the profession, would give it up and walk away?  OK, empirically, how many have actually done this?  It is essentially an accident that K21 was written in the first place.

More On Owning Unowned Land

This follows an earlier post by me on April 17 on "Who Owns Unowned Land," which argued that in the US it is the states in the original 13 colonies and the federal government in the rest of the nation, with the precise legal code defining the tenure rights being those of the nation that was ruling the land when ownership was first established.  Which gets us back to this matter of how does this first ownership get established on previously "unowned land," with the implicit question for the US being, "why are not the Indian tribes the original owners?"

So, in a paper by T.W. Merrill from the Yale Law School in 2009, "Accession and Original Ownership," he addresses British common law views on how "original ownership" comes about, finding that the theory presumes that prior to individuals (or sub-national corporate entities) coming to own land, it was presumed to be "held in common," as in traditional medieval grazing commons in England that came to be enclosed, without it quite being clear who ultimately owned such grazing commons.  Merrill cites John Locke on this who wrote, amazingly enough, that we should think of the world as originally "being America," that is a giant commons.  For Locke it was mixing one's labor with the land that established ownership, a labor theory of ownership as it were.  The matter of "accession" is posed as an alternative, but this simply involves a modification of this labor mixing principle, altering it to the first owner is the one who establishes effective control over the land. Once that is recognized, then a chain is established that simply continues, which is why we have this matter of the code holding when land first becomes clearly owned being the relevant one for later property transfers, particularly real estate ones.

Now in fact this does not really answer our question, although it does highlight important details to some extent, particularly when we consider Locke's view of "America."  Why is it that the Indians did not "own" the land, or were not considered to be the owners by the British (and Spanish and French)?  Needless to say, certain areas were used regularly by certain tribes, arguably enough that Locke should have granted them property rights, unless he wanted to argue that they could not due to being subhuman or something like that (am not aware of Locke ever making such arguments).

No, obviously what is involved is recognizing that behind property rights, certainly in land, there is assumed to be some sort of government or state with an organized legal code and system of courts to enforce it, even if it is one that has evolved "spontaneously" a la the common law of Britain, in contrast to the continental codes derived from Roman law, although the argument of  Shleifer and his allies about the differences between these has been way overblown and often full of errors, the famous "Legal Origins" QJE paper by Glaeser and him being notorious for its myriad mistakes, even as it is one of the most heavily cited economics papers of all time.

So, private property comes into play when a government with a legal system recognizes that somebody has "mixed their labor" or otherwise assumed some recognized degree of control over some land with, very importantly, that person recognized as someone with legal rights to do so within the law code of the state involved, with that state itself ultimately having some degree of control or claim to control the land in question.  This gets us back to the question of how America did not come to belong to the Indian tribes, although now reservation lands do, and many individual Indians own land privately in many places.  It was simply a matter of force, although it must be recognized that none of the tribes had organized legal systems of the sort that one found in Europe.  These "commons," in many cases recognized among tribes as being "territory" of one tribe or another, became the property of the relevant European-backed governmental entity that took them from the Indians, one of those acts of "primitive accumulation" of which Marx wrote at length.

In any case, in the eastern US, those entities were the individual colonies, thus allowing them to "own unowned  land," with private ownership being recognized either by the Crown directly or by governors of the colonies assigned by the Crown, and the priority of  their rights continuing into the independence era of the US.  This  also explains how certain areas that had been settled while there was French or Spanish rule with individual properties being established under their rule continued to have their tenure determined by the system of legal land tenure in place when the original ownership was established.  But when the US would take control of these territories by either conquest or purchase, that land not already privately owned would belong to the US federal government, which did the conquering or purchasing, although which agency of the US government might come to have responsibility for such land would depend on acts of Congress.  And, of course, the various Homestead Acts all followed the Lockean principles of mixing labor with the land to assert control and ultimately private property rights.

So, running this back to the matter of Clive Bundy in Nevada and his claim that the "sovereign" state of Nevada owns the BLM lands that he has been grazing cattle on for decades without paying any fees, his argument continues to be completely legless.  If he wants to argue that somebody other than the US federal government is the owner of these lands, then the most legitimate alternative candidates would be either nearby Indian tribes (Shoshones?) or maybe the government of Mexico, from whom the lands were taken by force in the Mexican War.  I am sure he does not want to recognize either of them, who would also presumably demand fees from him to graze his cattle.  I know that he claims that some sort of rights were granted to one of his grandfathers, and maybe he did  "mix labor" with the lands, but the courts have not recognized  that claim.  And the matter of him and his armed friends flying lots of American flags while denying the very existence of the US federal government at all is completely absurd.

Barkley Rosser

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Germany and Ukraine: Official and Alternative Views

The official view is on display in today’s New York Times, where a prominent news analysis piece (p. 4) claims that Germany’s pacific attachment to Ruhe and Ordnung (quiet and order) has been shaken by the aggressive behavior of Russia in the last month.  (They also say it’s been undermined by the Snowden revelations, but that is quickly dropped after the opening paragraphs; it’s not why this article was written.)  Quoting an article in Die Zeit and a CDU (conservative) politician, the article concludes that Germany has to face the reality that cooperation and compromise is not how the world works, and that it must rearm and adopt what amounts to a more NATO-friendly foreign policy.

Your first indication that this is about what Germans should think and not what they do think is the fact that both of these “representative” sources are from the right.  Die Zeit, in particular, is an interesting animal: it is literate and thoughtful, the journal whose want ads you would peruse each week if you were an academic looking for a job, but on international matters its tone is set by its editor and boss, Josef Joffe, perhaps Germany’s only high-profile neocon.  (He also holds a visiting post at the Hoover Institution.)  My ninth-grade social studies teacher told me that one of the main ways a newspaper spins the news is by selectively quoting those who agree with them.  (I had to memorize SQECBOP: slanting-quoting-editorial-cartoon-burying-omission-photo.  See, I still remember.)

Now, I’ll admit I’m hardly an expert in What Germany Thinks.  I know a few Germans and have an idea what they think, but I do try to keep up with what’s happening there.  I have an alternative take on how the Ukraine business is affecting most Germans:

1. Germany made a deal after WWII to be “of Europe”; it’s the basis for its return to political and economic power.  This is ingrained in popular consciousness.  The German economy also depends mightily (too much, in fact) on its exports to the rest of Europe.  The mess in Ukraine is seen as a crisis for Europe, and a threat to the European-ness of the other ex-Communist states in the region.  There is also a historical connection: Ukraine has been the home of large communities of ethnic Germans dating back centuries, and many current German citizens can trace their roots to Ukrainian ancestors.  Germans, except on the hard left, want Ukraine to be pro-West.

2. One of the lessons German drew from their disastrous experience before and during the Third Reich is that society must be based on compromise and consensus.  The majority should get the majority of what it wants, but not everything.  All points of view that are willing to join the overall compromise should be respected and have a voice in the final outcome.  I was in Germany during the police invasion of Zuccotti Park, and everyone I talked to was appalled that the government would simply try to wipe out Occupy rather than talk with them and allow opinion and policy to shift a bit toward the Occupiers.

Now we come to the crux: Germany was in the process of negotiating a deal between Yanukovych and the Maidan protesters when the sniper attack occurred that killed over a hundred people, protesters and police alike, and that resulted in a new government in Kyiv.  There is suspicion in Germany that the origin of this breakdown in Ruhe and Ordnung may have had its roots in far-right elements of the protesters themselves.  While Putin himself is unpopular in Germany, there is considerable support for the view that the current Ukrainian government lacks legitimacy.  Its basis was the suppression of compromise and inclusion.  (If you want to be cynical, you could say that there would be more support for the interim government if it included Hamburg’s favorite son, Vitaly Klitschko.)

3. Another lesson Germans learned is that small numbers of armed fascists can cause big problems.  You shouldn't let them form militias, and you shouldn’t bring them into the government, even as junior partners.  There is a much higher level of concern in Germany than in, say, the US over the roles of Svoboda and the Right Sector.  They are less inclined to dismiss the claims by pro-Russian elements that fascism is a real threat.  I’m writing this from the US, but my guess is that most Germans agree with the Russian side that the latest deal requires the Right Sector to disarm at the same time as the pro-Russian militias.  Can anyone back me up on that?

4. The leaked Nuland phone call made a big splash in Germany.  I doubt that most Americans even know what it was.  The only reference to it in the Times in the last month was in an op-ed piece entitled “The Case for Profanity in Print”.  Germans can’t be happy that the US schemed behind the scenes to keep Klitschko out.  Oh, and they didn't like that comment about the EU either.

So do I think Germans are going to abandon Ruhe and Ordnung, compromise and consensus, reliance on diplomacy, because of Putin’s actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine?  I’d say no, and that there won’t be any rush to rearm and extol the use of force.  We’ll see how this develops.


So, in today's Washington Post, Obama intimate, David Ignatius, argues that the deal announced in Geneva from negotiations between US SecState Kerry, Russian FM, Lavrov, and the Ukrainian FM, which Lavrov called "a compromise of sorts," reflects a joint understanding that this situation resembles the pre-WW I situation from a century ago that led to that unexpectedly catastrophic war that upended a century-long establishment of international peace and relations, and that attempting to achieve a peaceful solution of the current crisis would show that our species has evolved to a higher state of international consciousness and relations that is beyond global conflict triggered by trivial eastern European political/ethnic/social/political/economic/philosophical disputes.

Decades ago I read Barbara Tuchman's _Guns of August_, which laid out the tragic path that led the world into the pointless WW I, which understandably led to communism in Russia and fascism in Italy and Germany, and thus to the even worse catastrophe of WW II, which was not supposed to happen after the "War to End All Wars."  I was convinced, and years later I learned that President Kennedy had read that book along with Thomas Schelling's _Strategies of Conflict_, reportedly on JFK's bedside table during the Cuban missile crisis,and so he understood that we should not repeat 1914, particularly in a world where the Great Powers held massive amounts of nuclear weapons, which is still the case.

So, although I could analyze details of the situation in eastern Ukraine, and even previously suggested that the US should engage in at least threatening a serious military manifestation (and indeed the US is gradually introducing ship by ship into the Black Sea, which I think is a "good thing"), I welcome this development, which many are ridiculing, although I think there is much more behind the move to  peace than is in Ignatius's column, and certainly beyond what is pubically known.  So, while I think that this current agreement out of Geneva has the doubts and limits that the many critics from all sides are pouring out of every sewer, I support that the peace party that has much going for it, not the least of which is that both Obama and Putin have in fact read or know of what Barbara Tuchman wrote about what happened a century ago, which everybody on this planet should hope that we should avoid.

Barkley Rosser

Friday, April 18, 2014

Abstinence Reconsidered II: Beware of Pity

Stefan Zweig was a master of the nested narrative. His novel, Beware of Pity was one of his works that inspired the film, The Grand Budapest Hotel. The narrator's introduction from the novel will be familiar to those who have enjoyed the movie:
Nothing is further from the truth than the only too common notion that the author's fantasy is incessantly at work within him, that his invention has an inexhaustible and continuous fund of stories and incidents upon which to draw. In reality he need only, instead of setting out to find, let himself be found by, characters and happenings, which, in so far as he has preserved the heightened capacity for observing and listening, unceasingly seek him out as their instrument of communication. To the person who has over and over again tried to trace human destinies, many tell their own story.
The Austrian war hero, Captain Hofmiller tells the first of these stories to the narrator, inside of which he relates the story told to him by Dr. Condor, who in turn recounts the confession of the Hungarian nobleman, Herr von Kekesfalva, who was formerly "the narrow-chested little Jewish lad called Leopold Kanitz." Kanitz transforms himself into von Kekesfalva through an audacious swindle that is, in its ultimate consummation, sentimentally touching.

One can only fully appreciate the banality of Ludwig von Mises's The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality through the prism of Zweig's subtle psychological study of self-denial. There is nothing subtle about von Mises's aggressive vindication of the "three progressive classes." The mawkish vehemence of his manichaean hypothesis virtually parodies itself:
Saving—capital accumulation—is the agency that has transformed step by step the awkward search for food on the part of savage cave dwellers into the modern ways of industry. The pacemakers of this evolution were the ideas that created the institutional framework within which capital accumula­tion was rendered safe by the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Every step forward on the way toward prosperity is the effect of saving. The most ingenious technological inventions would be practically useless if the capital goods required for their utilization had not been accumulated by saving. 
The entrepreneurs employ the capital goods made available by the savers for the most economical satisfaction of the most urgent among the not-yet-satisfied wants of the consumers. Together with the technologists, intent upon perfecting the methods of processing, they play, next to the savers themselves, an active part in the course of events that is called economic progress. The rest of mankind profit from the activities of these three classes of pioneers. But whatever their own doings may be, they are only beneficiaries of changes to the emergence of which they did not contribute anything.
The characteristic feature of the market economy is the fact that it allots the greater part of the improvements brought about by the endeavors of the three progressive classes—those saving, those investing the capital goods, and those elaborating new methods for the employment of capital goods—to the non-progressive majority of people. Capital accumulation exceeding the increase in population raises, on the one hand, the marginal productivity of labor and, on the other hand, cheapens the products. The market process provides the common man with the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of other peoples’ achievements. It forces the three progressive classes to serve the non-progressive majority in the best possible way.
Not only are the workers not exploited by capitalists, it is they -- the common folk, the non-progressive majority -- who exploit the "three classes of pioneers" and heedlessly consume the bulk of the fruits of their benefactors' abstinence. "The story of how Leopold Kanitz became lord and master of Kekesfalva," Dr. Condor recounted to Herr Leutnant Hofmiller, as they conferred in one of the alcoves of the Tiroler Weinstube, "begins in a slow train from Budapest to Vienna."

Beware of Pity is, of course, fiction, as are the tales within tales within tales in the novel. It would be as absurd for me to "argue against" Ludwig von Mises's account of the accumulation of capital and the exploitation of the capitalists by the rest of mankind as it would be to challenge Dr. Condor's story about how Kanitz obtained his fortune and became von Kekesfalva.

Theory of Abstinence Reconsidered

"Exactly a year before Nassau W. Senior discovered at Manchester, that the profit (including interest) of capital is the product of the last hour of the twelve, he had announced to the world another discovery. 'I substitute,' he proudly says, 'for the word capital, considered as an instrument of production, the word abstinence.'"
[In a footnote:] "It has never occurred to the vulgar economist to make the simple reflexion, that every human action may be viewed, as 'abstinence' from its opposite. Eating is abstinence from fasting, walking, abstinence from standing still, working, abstinence from idling, idling, abstinence from working, &c." -- K. Marx, Capital
Marx's footnote casually suggests a fertile potential that he didn't follow up on. I propose to use Veblen's notion of "conscientious withdrawal of efficiency" (or sabotage) and Robert Hale's "coercion" to outline what might be termed a "labour/abstinence theory of value" that avoids the pitfalls both of the misplaced concreteness of "embodied" labour and the unreal passivity of the equilibrium view of supply and demand.

Living labour-power is the consummate numéraire good because it is definitively limited by population and physiology at any given time while still being flexibly expandable. Keynes suggested as much in arguing that "we have been able to take the unit of labour as the sole physical unit which we require in our economic system, apart from units of money and of time."

By contrast, there are no such limits on the quantity of labour "embodied" in commodities, including physical capital. However, the value of such embodied labour is subject to depreciation due to obsolescence, wear and tear and over-accumulation (or excess capacity). So the first contrast between living labour power and labour embodied in capital goods is that the former is relatively fixed and the latter is indefinitely expandable -- at least in principle.

But there is also a second contrast, having to do with the perishability of living labour power. The worker who is unable to dispose of his or her capacity to work today can't put "yesterday's labour power" on the market tomorrow. It's gone. The penalty for not being able to immediately sell goods is not as final and can even sometimes result in a windfall. The same distinction applies equally to the conscientious withdrawal from the market.

Thus living labour power is a more or less definitive quantity that is disciplined by its perishability for a temporary withdrawal from the market, while labour embodied in capital goods is, in principle, indefinitely expandable and potentially rewarded by temporary withdrawal (abstinence) from the market. "Abstinence," then, makes its re-entry not in the form of a pious moral justification for profit but of a strategy for leveraging profitability by regulating the "scarcity" of capital relative to labour power.

"Value," in this account is not some mechanical adding up of units of labour power expended and/or embodied. Nor is it the passive intersection of complementary subjective utility functions. Instead it is the outcome of a "higgling of the market," to use Thornton's phrase, constrained by the properties of the labour-power numéraire. Thus it is constituted, in part, by labour-power and embodied labour but alternatively by the withholding of labour-power and embodied labour -- that is by abstinence of production, not in consumption.

The case for such a labour/abstinence theory of value can best be explained by arguing against competing interpretations that address elements of this argument but come to different conclusions. My foils will be Ludwig von Mises and John Roemer, for reasons which should become readily apparent.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

J. M. Keynes Vanishes into the Swamp

Keynes' fixation on the labour theory of value:
"It is much preferable to speak of capital as having a yield over the course of its life in excess of its original cost, than as being productive. For the only reason why an asset offers a prospect of yielding during its life services having an aggregate value greater than its initial supply price is because it is scarce; and it is kept scarce because of the competition of the rate of interest on money. If capital becomes less scarce, the excess yield will diminish, without its having become less productive — at least in the physical sense. 
"I sympathise, therefore, with the pre-classical doctrine that everything is produced by labour, aided by what used to be called art and is now called technique, by natural resources which are free or cost a rent according to their scarcity or abundance, and by the results of past labour, embodied in assets, which also command a price according to their scarcity or abundance. It is preferable to regard labour, including, of course, the personal services of the entrepreneur and his assistants, as the sole factor of production, operating in a given environment of technique, natural resources, capital equipment and effective demand. This partly explains why we have been able to take the unit of labour as the sole physical unit which we require in our economic system, apart from units of money and of time."

Who Owns Unowned Land?

In Nevada, rancher Cliven Bundy thinks that the state of Nevada does, but whether it does or not, he thinks that effectively he can use it if he wants to without paying anybody any fees to do so, although I gather he thinks this because he thinks that his grandfather was given some right to use it in perpetuity back in the 1880s, that is, the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land he has been grazing his cattle on for the last 20 years or so without paying required fees, now piled up to about $1 million or so that he has not paid.  So when his cattle were corralled by the BLM for Bundy's non-payment of said fees, a bunch of his armed friends went and successfully demanded that the BLM release his corralled cattle, which the BLM did, afraid of any violence that might ensue.  So, even though all the other cattle ranchers in Nevada who use BLM lands are paying their fees, Bundy does not.  Does he have any basis for his claims?

No.  But why is that?

The problem is that he and many others, including the followers of the 1970s-80s "Sagebrush Rebellion," are under the impression that somehow unowned land belongs to the states, and that at some point the federal government simply took all that land from the state of Nevada without paying for it.  Needless to say, what is owned by the federal government in Nevada is well over 80% of the land there, so this is nontrivial there, with only Alaska having a higher such percentage.  Of course, the Sagebrush Rebellion, and now Bundy and his friends, have gone further and simply asserted that the federal government has no right to own any of that land, indeed that the federal government "does not exist," (or maybe "should not") although some of the Sagebrush Rebellion crowd went further and agreed with the old Posse Comitatus group that held that the same holds for the state governments also.  For the old Posse Comitatus, the highest level of legitimate government in the US is actually the counties, hence "posse" for those who work with a county sheriff (when I worked for the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in the 1970s, Posse Comitatus members would make "citizens arrests" of DNR officials attempting to enforce fishing restrictions in state-owned lakes on them).  I gather that Bundy has so far not made that argument, although at times he seems to have suggested that the land he grazes his cattle on belongs to Clark County, where Las Vegas is, and one of his more vociferous followers is a retired sheriff, maybe an old Sagebrush Rebel, the guy who was supposedly going to put his family members in front of the group as "shields" against the supposedly illegitimate BLM agents.

Indeed, the ultimate problem here is pretty murky, but for better or for worse legally speaking, outside the original 13 colonies unowned land, that which has never been legally owned by any private party in the past, belongs to the federal government.  Within the original 13 colonies, it is indeed the states that own never-privately-owned, or "unowned" land.  Why that should be is a matter of how long the entity has existed that initially owned the land, and as the original 13 colonies existed before the United States did, that this is why it is that the states succeeding those colonies are the owners of unowned land in those original 13 colonies, in contrast with the rest of the country.  The claim that these colonies or states owned it rather than the native Indian tribes ultimately comes down to some sort of claim that the tribes never legally organized themselves to "own" it, and that the Crown of England had the right to grant it to the colonies instead.

Thus, outside the original 13 colonies, where one finds land that was owned previously by private parties with that ownership originally established by another European nation besides Britain or the US, then the laws of that other nation determine the land tenure property rights system that underlies  that property, with the notable exception again of American Indian tribes, this reflecting the ultimate fundamental land grab of North America, with the tribal reservations granted to them specifically by the US federal government subsequently on case-by-case basis (although in some special cases such reservations or grants were made by colonies/states, most notably in Virginia where the tribes remain unrecognized by the US federal government, and certain tribes give the VA governor turkeys and other game on Thanksgiving to satisfy a 1680s era treaty between themselves and the governors of Virginia).  It is only European nations and their legal land tenure systems that count.

So, there is land in Wisconsin that is legally governed by French land tenure laws, mostly along the Wisconsin River near Green Bay, where the Fox River dumps into Lake Michigan, and also near Prairie du Chien, where the Wisconsin River dumps into the Mississippi. Such land is organized in long strips that front on the rivers, in contrast with the checkerboard pattern established by the US Northwest Territory laws in 1787.  Such land tenure laws also hold for underground land tenure rights near St. Louis, and also for most land in Louisiana. Likewise, in New Mexico there is land that has been passed down through private owners since prior to the 1848 Mexican War that is held according to old Mexican land tenure laws that descended from Spanish land tenure laws based on the 1390 Alfonsin Code of Spain, later replaced by the Napoleonic Code, but only after Mexico and most of Latin America gained independence from Spain, one of those minor problems with the original "Legal Origins" paper in the QJE by Glaeser and Shleifer that has been cited up the wazoo but that is simply crawling with such historical mistakes.

In any case, this matter of the 1848 transfer from Mexico to the US is what is at issue in Nevada where Mr. Bundy has been making his claims.  When that happened, unowned land fell into the hands of the US government without having to be bought or otherwise transferred from a county or state government.  The Homestead Act under Lincoln in the early 1860s and subsequent ones laid down how private individuals could turn such land into their privately owned property by working such land for sufficient periods of time in certain ways, but over 80% of land in Nevada was so crummy that nobody ever did so, including the sections that supposedly Bundy's grandfather grazed cattle on at times.  So it remained and remains federally owned, even if somehow Bundy thinks that his grandfather ought to have been given title to it, although that is not precisely his claim, which amounts to a muddle between he ought to have usufruct rights and that it is or should be owned by the state of Nevada, or maybe by Clark County, and if so, they would grant him those usufruct rights to graze without paying any fees.  But none of that is true and has been repeatedly ruled as such by the courts.

I note a peculiar example of this matter of unowned land in Virginia, where many years ago I worked briefly on land use management for the George Washington National Forest here in VA.  So, there is an agreement between the US Forest Service and the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding unowned land within the boundaries established for the George Washington Forest regarding such land within those boundaries.  It is that if the Forest Service bears the transactions costs of establishing what the precise boundaries of any such land are and that the land is indeed truly unowned, then the state will transfer its ownership of that otherwise unowned land to the US Forest Service.  I am not sure about now, but as of 30 years ago there was somebody in the office of the George Washington National Forest HQ part of whose job was to do this with this leading to about two pieces of land per year being so transferred, most of these rather small, a few acres, but also mostly odd bits of forest back in the mountains that most people around it probably thought was owned by somebody privately.  But, in fact, by whatever historical fluke, the pieces never did come to be owned by any non-Indian private parties and thus was owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In any case, Cliven Bundy does not have a legal leg to stand on, and the various politicians and commentators jumping up and down and screaming on his behalf should just cut it out.

Barkley Rosser

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Ants at the Piketty Picnic: What's Wrong with "Inequality"?

"For entirely innocent reasons, the preferences and talents of people will not always produce equality of results. The egalitarian tendency is then to coerce equality of result by law." -- Robert Bork 
Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
Croupier: "Your winnings, sir."
Captain Renault:"Oh, thank you very much."
So what's wrong with inequality, anyway? According to conservatives like Bork, inequality is the innocent outcome of innate differences in "preferences and talents." Doing away with inequality would not only be inefficient but would require the exercise of coercion.

Liberals, meanwhile are shocked, shocked to find so much inequality going on in this day and age. Obviously there is a need for a bi-partisan effort to tone down the inequality a bit without too much coercion. Oh, thank you very much.

So what's wrong with inequality? For anybody paying attention, Judge Bork let the cat out of the bag. Inequality is coercive (but don't tell anyone!). That's why conservatives attack equality as coercive.

The move incorporates several tactics associated with Karl Rove: take the offensive, attack your opponents' strengths and steal their thunder by accusing them first of what they might effectively use against you. Libertarians and conservatives have made it their business to "own" the coercion claim and thus deflect its sting. Liberals aid and abet them by conceding a whimsical "efficiency/equity trade-off" and by running interference against normative encroachments on allegedly positive economic methodology.

Why do people want to get rich? Sure, they want nice stuff, but more fundamentally they want to be freed from the coercive everyday insecurity of being poor. How do the wealthy stay rich and get even richer? They use the political power that their wealth accords to keep the game rigged in their favor.

These are not state secrets. Nor are they facts disclosed in data reported by the BLS or the IRS. Just common knowledge -- common sense that doesn't count for beans in the marginal productivity analysis. Inequality is a positive fact; coercion is a normative claim. So let's all talk about inequality as if it has nothing to do with coercion. Let's not talk about the elephant in the room. What elephant?

So what's wrong with "inequality"? Framing the debate to be about "inequality" misses the point that the real problem is coercion. If the inequality conversation leaves the coercion question up for grabs, you can be damn sure the right will seize it and run with it. Loser liberals then will have yet another opportunity to be shocked, shocked that so much inequality is going on.
"Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power…. The power which that possession immediately and directly conveys to him, is the power of purchasing; a certain command over all the labour, or over all the produce of labour, which is then in the market."  -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
"The distribution of income, to repeat, depends on the relative power of coercion which the different members of the community can exert against one another. Income is the price paid for not using one's coercive weapons. One of these weapons consists of the power to withhold one's labor. Another is the power to consume all that can be bought with one's lawful income instead of investing part of it. Another is the power to call on the government to lock up certain pieces of land or productive equipment. Still another is the power to decline to undertake an enterprise which may be attended with risk. By threatening to use these various weapons, one gets (with or without sacrifice) an income in the form of wages, interest, rent or profits. The resulting distribution is very far from being equal, and the in- equalities are very far from corresponding to needs or to sacrifice." -- Robert L. Hale, "Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State,"  Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1923), pp. 470-494

Monday, April 14, 2014

Robert Samuelson Right For Once (About Long Term Unemployed)

I have probably picked on Robert Samuelson of WaPo more times than any other in posts here, most often over his regularly misleading columns on Social Security.  So, I guess I should note when for once he has it right.  He notes today in a WaPo column entiteld, "Idle and unwanted," that the long term unemployed are facing a very difficult situation in the US, with prospects that could lead to many of them simply never becoming employed again, and many of those who have managed to get jobs getting ones far below their previous jobs.  The problem is that prospective employers increasingly just assume that there must be something wrong with these people, and in many cases there is a problem of the degradation of specialized skills over time.  While he does not come out vigorously for demand expansion, he agrees that the economy is not near some inflationary breakout point, thus effectively supporting such an expansion to help these people, even if such an expansion may tend to help them less than others.

All of this may be widely accepted and effectively conventional wisdom almost.  But, I am pleased to agree with RJS for once.  Maybe he will write more that I can agree with in the future, although I suspect that he will continue to be a hopeless case on the Social Security issue.

Barkley Rosser

Suresh Naidu Responds: "Substitutes or Complements: Marx and Brad and Me"

Suresh Naidu at The Slack Wire:
Since Brad Delong has attributed some thoughts on Marx to me, and I have gotten some emails inquiring whether or not I did say them, I thought it would be useful to publically air what I understand to be the context.
Sandwichman was one of the inquisitors. In an earlier post, Return of the Creature from the DeLong Lagoon S. had questioned the accuracy of DeLong's attribution of these thoughts to Naidu. According to Naidu, however:
The context of the long-running conversation [between Naidu and DeLong] has been trying to establish a dialogue between Marx and modern growth theory. Inside the modern production function there is a pretty undifferentiated view of "K" (which leads it into some troubles as bad as any in the labor theory of value). Marx on the other hand distinguishes (at least) machines, technology, and money-qua-productive-input as different from each other conceptually. The fact that these are rolled into an aggregate production function by mainstream growth theory is not Marx's fault. And so when somebody is trying to translate Marx into modern economics, the slippage between what is "K" and "what Marx meant" can get confusing.
This no doubt explains DeLong's comment that Marx, "vanishes into the swamp which is the attempt to reconcile the labor theory of value with economic reality, and never comes out." It is not Marx's fault that he vanishes into the swamp of trying to establish a dialogue between Marx and modern growth theory (inside of which there is a pretty undifferentiated view...) the attempt to reconcile the labor theory of value with economic reality the modern production function. Or something.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Presentation on Multiple Equilibria

I'm giving a lecture this week in my development class (Small World: Poverty and Development on a Shrinking Planet) on multiple equilibria. We're using Todaro and Smith, and the lecture is intended to provide an alternative approach to the material in Ch. 4 of that book.  Of course, I've been waving the flag of multiple equilibria, especially those arising from interaction effects, for over 30 years.  (My original paper on the topic was written in – gasp – 1982.)

For the pptx version, click here.  For the slightly less jaw-dropping pdf, try this.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Who Gets To Decide Which Words And Spellings Are OK (Politically And Otherwise)?

Of course, this is an old problem as ongoing discussions about what the football team in Washington should be named and what people of African descent in the US should be called, and so on.  But lately I have seen other situations around the world where there seems to be confusion and also lots of regular insulting of people, with me not knowing how much of this is just ignorance and how much of it is politics, and even who it is who gets to decide these things.

My latest example is seeing the following names/spellings given for four prominent Ukrainian cities: Kiev, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Lviv.  The problem is that while the latter three are the Ukrainian spellings (or their standard English transliteration), the first one is the Russian one.  Ukrainians call it "Kyiv," while Russians call the latter three respectively "Kharkov, Lugansk, Lvov." How is it that we do not use a consistent set of spellings?  Just to really confuse things, I note that the the last one, the major city of western Ukraine, has also been spelled like the Russian way but with the "L" having a slash through it that makes it pronounced "W" more or less, which is the Polish spelling, the Poles having ruled it between the world wars, and before WW I, when it was part of the province of Galicia in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it was named "Lemberg," obviously German.  The changes for this city's name all reflected who ruled it, but why is Kyiv still being called the Russian "Kiev"?

Here are some other ones that I think that most people simply do not know about, but which involve the people who are called by these names feeling insulted.  One is "Shi'ite."  This is considered insulting by those who follow that tradition of Muslim belief.  It is preferable to refer to such an individual person as a "Shi'i," and collectively as "Shi'a," which one does occasionally see in the media.  Most academic writings get this right, but somehow the insulting "Shi'ite" and "Shi'ites" has become entrenched in our media, although I think that most of those using it do not realize that it is insulting.

Unsurprisingly, there are several more of these in the Middle East.  So, Saudi Muslims do not like being identified as being "Wahhabis" or slightly more correct, "Wah'habis."  Technically indeed their beliefs do follow doctrines established by one Muhammed ibn Wah'hab, who in 1740 converted Muhammed ibn Sa'ud, the founder of the Saudi royal family, that the very strict Hanbali Sunni shari'a is the code that all good Muslims should follow, and ever since the family has followed this doctrine, with it not entirely unreasonable to identify the doctrine with its founder.  However, they consider this insulting.  They prefer to call their beliefs by an Arab word that is usually translated as "Unitarian," however given that this word in English refers to a very liberal religious group and their beliefs are about as strict and conservative as any within the Muslim world, this would be very confusing.  I also note that the Wah'habis are often confused with the Salafis, and they share some views, but the are not identical and disagree on quite a few things, with Salafism being a 19th century doctrine that originated in Egypt.

Finally, I note that some groups manage to get others to stop using insulting names for them, as we have seen sometimes in the US.  So, the religious group that is dominant in western Ukraine may have become winners in more ways than one as a result of recent events involving their nation.  In the past, this religious group were generally called "Uniates," a term that they always considered insulting.  This group adheres to the Catholic Church, and has done so since a long period of  Polish rule in the past.  But they have long been allowed to use Orthodox liturgies and follow certain other Orthodox practices, such as allowing priests to marry.  In this way they are like the Maronites of Lebanon.  In any case, they have  long preferred to be called "Greek Catholics," and lo and behold in recent weeks I have seen press stories talking about priests in Ukraine whom are described as being just that, "Greek Catholics," not "Uniates."  So, maybe something good is coming out of all this mess yet, although I remain unclear who is really in charge of all this.

Barkley Rosser