Predatory capitalism

Isn’t all capitalism predatory, some contemporary critics might well ask, looking at the post-crisis economic landscape? Geoff Mulgan, chief exec of NESTA, is more optimistic in his recent book [amazon_link id=”0691146969″ target=”_blank” ]The Locust and the Bee: Predators and Creators in Capitalism’s Future[/amazon_link]. He foresees the possibility of sustainable economic growth built on relationships, with productive health and social care sectors, green innovation and social enterprise.

[amazon_image id=”0691146969″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Locust and the Bee: Predators and Creators in Capitalism’s Future[/amazon_image]

It won’t be business as usual; instead we’ll see “concentrations of capital guided by social and environmental goals as well as commercial ones; circular production systems; the civil and social economy; the ever-growing social industries providing health care, education and support; the collaborations of cyberspace and new tools for collective intelligence; the household reasserting itself as a place of production; the worlds of parallel exchange systems, collaborative consumption and time accounts.”

This lovely vision of ‘creative capitalism’ is some distance from the ‘predatory capitalism’ that brought us the crash, and continues to serve up poor service at high prices to support executive pay packets. The book makes a good case that the dysfunction we’re all too aware of now is itself the dynamic that will change the character of the capitalism mixed economies we live in. Mulgan draws on the literature on technology-driven long waves to explain how cycles of change come about: every crisis contains the seeds of its own destruction, as it were. Of course there are forces of reaction, but he has a fundamental belief in the power of innovation and human creativity to overcome them. The chapters on these dynamics form the core of the book, and set out the dynamics very clearly.

This is cheering, but I’m not so sure. The book is excellent on the economic dynamics of innovation, but oddly quiet – certainly for such a politically-aware author – on the politics of changing ‘the system’. It discusses, and dismisses, the utopianism of anti-capitalist protest, but does not cover the forces of cynicism and inertia. Mancur Olson’s classic work on rent seeking and the political economy of elite predation (for example in [amazon_link id=”0674537513″ target=”_blank” ]The Logic of Collective Action[/amazon_link]) is cited briefly; this theme is underplayed. The predators are in a strong position. They are defended by a barricade of legislation, ways of doing business and social norms.

Take one small example of the ability to resist change: today’s FT reports that the drive to increase the proportion of women in the boardroom of FTSE companies has ground to a halt, might in fact be going into reverse. The reason is almost certainly that the method of recruitment remains the old boys’ network: incumbents and headhunters will say, with sincerity, they’d love to appoint more women, they make huge efforts to shortlist women, but there aren’t enough suitable candidates. But ‘suitable’ means known to them and with the same career path as a male candidate. Of course, nothing will change without a legal quota. What are the odds on getting that legislation? Indeed.

Now pan out, and think about the legal and regulatory changes needed to open large swathes of the economy – banking, transport, pharmaceuticals, farming & agricultural trading – to the innovative start-ups that are indeed, as the book suggests, all around.

So although I like the vision set out in [amazon_link id=”0691146969″ target=”_blank” ]The Locust and the Bee[/amazon_link], and like Geoff Mulgan am encouraged by the opportunity offered by the crisis and inherent dynamics, it’s time to plunge into the legal and political nuts and bolts of turning predation into creation.

The robots are coming. Or are they?

This morning I warmed up for work by reading some intriguing articles that have been much linked-to in recent days: an interview with Jaron Lanier about his new book [amazon_link id=”1451654960″ target=”_blank” ]Who Owns The Future?[/amazon_link]; a Mother Jones article Welcome Robot Overlords, Please Don’t Fire Us; and an essay about how the intellectual left must re-engage with practical political economy.

[amazon_image id=”1451654960″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Who Owns the Future?[/amazon_image]

All three articles are inspired by the economic precariousness of the (former?) middle classes, the loss of jobs in the middle of the income distribution compared to the top and bottom, and the downward dip in real incomes in the middle too. We’re not scared about robots turning rogue and killing humans, but we are scared about them taking on the 9-to-5 grind, the commute, the office politics…. Robot angst has also shown up in economics with the excellent book by Brynjolfsson and McAfee, [amazon_link id=”0984725113″ target=”_blank” ]Race Against the Machine[/amazon_link], and in Paul Krugman’s blog posts.

[amazon_image id=”0984725113″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy[/amazon_image]

The underlying hypothesis is that the way robots substitute for humans today is different from the way machines have substituted for us in the past; that they can now perform cognitive rather than physical tasks and the technical change is therefore capital-biased. It will be good for capital but not people. The ‘therefore’ in that sentence is an assumption, which might turn out to be true. I have an open mind on it.

However, there are some questions I’d pose before we let technological determinism run away with us.

1. The pattern of shifts in employment and income distribution – the hollowing out of the middle – is common to all OECD countries but rates of robotisation differ widely. What’s the linkage?

2. Why has automation so far coincided with increases in returns to education but will from now on be linked to decreasing returns to education?

3. The debate tends to focus on creative and routine admin or manufacturing jobs but the most heavily-automated sector of the economy is finance, which has seen the biggest increases in real incomes. How has this happened and why would it be different elsewhere?

My alternative hypothesis is that the returns to any new technology, whatever its bias, will be determined by social and political factors. So that leads me to think James Harkin’s LA Review of Books essay challenging people to stop being distracted by ‘nudge’ politics and think about the classic political economy questions of social structure and income distribution is the most optimistic of this morning’s three reads.

 

The ABC of counterfactuals

Breakfast is one of my favourite times of day. I’ve been out for a run with the dog so feel very virtuous, and of course have the Financial Times to enjoy. This morning, one article had me spluttering over my coffee, however. Premium headphone-maker Sennheiser is leading a campaign against fake electronic goods. This is understandable; as a spokesman pointed out, if people buy cheap rip-offs thinking they’re the real thing, it will damage the company’s reputation. But what provoked me was the statement that the fakes had cost the company $2m in lost sales.

No they haven’t. That sum is based on a comparison with the false counterfactual that everyone who bought fake headphones would have bought the real thing if the cheap copy had been unavailable. The true counterfactual is that almost nobody who bought the fake item would have otherwise bough the real one, which apparently costs around $300. If anybody suffered lost sales, it was makers of cheap headphones, who should be joining Sennheiser’s campaign. Similarly, almost nobody who buys a $20 ‘Louis Vuitton’ handbag at the local market would otherwise have spent $2000 on the real McCoy. I suspect that relatively few people who buy fakes consumer goods actually think they’re getting the real item, although some no doubt are fooled. The price contains the information about authenticity and most people understand that.

The erroneous counterfactual about market size is often introduced into discussions of online piracy too. Although some people who download free music from filesharing sites would otherwise have bought it, many would not. Demand is negatively correlated with price in most markets.

This is not to condone piracy at all. In the case of electronic items it can be seriously dangerous, and I think it’s a big problem. I just wish people would learn to think about counterfactuals. It isn’t taught properly in economics courses, although essential in competition analysis – and also in good econometrics, including estimating the effect of introducing a low-priced copy of a consumer good into a market. The best discussion I’ve come across is in [amazon_link id=”0691120358″ target=”_blank” ]Mostly Harmless Econometrics[/amazon_link] by Joshua Angrist and Jorn-Steffen Pischke.

[amazon_image id=”0691120358″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion[/amazon_image]

Another take on classics for economists

The admirable Noah Smith responded to my list of suggested classics for economists with a list of science fiction novels for economists. It’s an excellent list, and Paul Krugman responded enthusiastically – he says Isaac Asimov’s [amazon_link id=”0586010807″ target=”_blank” ]Foundation[/amazon_link] novels set him on the path to becoming an economist.

[amazon_image id=”0586010807″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Foundation (The Foundation Series)[/amazon_image]

Some years ago, I wrote a column in the Independent arguing that economics sees humans as either Star Trek’s Mr Spock or deductive geniuses like Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes.

So the challenge now is for somebody to do the detective fiction for economists list.

[amazon_image id=”B00AHEMYEY” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Complete Sherlock Holmes[/amazon_image]

Interestingly, Benedict Cumberbatch has become a common thread between Sherlock and science fiction, with his role in the new Star Trek movie Into Darkness, which as an old Trekkie I can’t wait to see.

Natural born economist

Classics for economists

I’ve been brooding about the depressing popularity of Jane Austen, so have decided to offer my own list of classics for economists and others who’re not part of the sentimental frocks-and-romance brigade. Here’s my Top 10 list (actually it’s 14+), in no special order. As ever, other suggestions welcome.

[amazon_link id=”0141441631″ target=”_blank” ]Nostromo[/amazon_link] (or virtually any other of his novels), Joseph Conrad: the heart of colonialism

[amazon_image id=”0140620281″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Nostromo (Penguin Popular Classics)[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”0140447423″ target=”_blank” ]Germinal[/amazon_link], Emile Zola: the fuel of the Industrial Revolution – coal and human life

[amazon_image id=”1840226188″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Germinal (Wordsworth Classics of World Literature)[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”1853260932″ target=”_blank” ]North and South[/amazon_link] or [amazon_link id=”014043464X” target=”_blank” ]Mary Barton[/amazon_link], Mrs Gaskell: the social effects of industrialisation with a special eye on women. Mary Barton is set in my home city, Manchester.

[amazon_image id=”014043464X” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Mary Barton: A Tale of Manchester Life[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”0140455469″ target=”_blank” ]The Master and Margarita[/amazon_link], Mikhail Bulgakov: the murderous insanity of Soviet dictatorship – Professor Woland, Game Theorist? I’ve only just read this, having seen the truly, madly, deeply brilliant Theatre de Complicite staging earlier this year.

[amazon_image id=”014118373X” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Master and Margarita (Penguin Modern Classics)[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”0140449663″ target=”_blank” ]The Charterhouse of Palma[/amazon_link], Stendhal: pre-unification Italy and European politics

[amazon_link id=”0099512157″ target=”_blank” ]The Leopard[/amazon_link], Giuseppe de Lampedusa: The Risorgimento, and modernity.

[amazon_image id=”0099512157″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Leopard: Revised and with new material (Vintage Classics)[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”046087781X” target=”_blank” ]The Whirlpool[/amazon_link], George Gissing: in fact anything by Gissing – as he summed it up, “Not enough money,” in Britain’s newly industrialising cities

[amazon_link id=”0140230246″ target=”_blank” ]Middlemarch[/amazon_link], George Eliot (or again, pretty much anything by her): astute political and psychological analysis of 19th century social change. Bonnets and frocks without the saccharine.

[amazon_link id=”0140431497″ target=”_blank” ]Roxana[/amazon_link], Daniel Defoe: the economic status of women, by one of the unsung feminist heroes, who was also a famous economic journalist in his day. (Tim Harford, where is your first novel?)

[amazon_image id=”0199536740″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Roxana: The Fortunate Mistress (Oxford World’s Classics)[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”0099511436″ target=”_blank” ]We[/amazon_link], Yevgeny Zamyatin: collectivism, conformity – the dark side of the early 20th century. Another recent discovery, courtesy of Nick Reynolds.

[amazon_image id=”0140185852″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]We (Penguin Twentieth Century Classics)[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”1613824939″ target=”_blank” ]Les Miserables[/amazon_link], Victor Hugo: need I say anything? I even loved the recent musical movie version

[amazon_image id=”0140444300″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Les Miserables (Classics)[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”080324570X” target=”_blank” ]My Antonia[/amazon_link] and [amazon_link id=”0486277852″ target=”_blank” ]O Pioneers[/amazon_link], Willa Cather: the harsh life of the American frontier, and the strength of women

[amazon_image id=”0395083656″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]O Pioneers![/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”009954153X” target=”_blank” ]The Great Gatsby[/amazon_link], F Scott Fitzgerald: the Roaring 20s in a glamorous nutshell. I haven’t yet seen the new Baz Luhrmann movie version.

[amazon_link id=”1849021791″ target=”_blank” ]The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists[/amazon_link], Robert Tressel: not the greatest literature but a novel that still speaks to working people struggling for money.

[amazon_image id=”184022682X” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (Wordsworth Classics)[/amazon_image]