The current frustration with economic conditions in the USA and Europe has at its core two main elements. First the anti-capitalist concentration of power in a few monopolistic and oligopolistic corporations (along with the support and encouragement of governments and the governments failure to regulate markets to encourage capitalist practices). And second the consequences of living beyond our means finally becoming much more challenging.

What we have had has been very questionably capitalist. The largest reason for this “questionable” nature is not related to labor but instead to the inordinate power given to a limited number of large corporations. The corporations are suppose to not have “market power” in real capitalism. They have huge and growing market power. To me the main problem is that power disruption to the functioning of capitalist free markets.

There is also the problem that we have been living far beyond our means. This has nothing to do with capitalism or not capitalism. It is as simple as you produce 100 units of goods and use 110 that can’t continue forever. The USA started building a surplus in the 1940’s, I imagine Europe did in the 1950’s. Since about the 1980’s both areas have been living far beyond their means. While they were consuming what they saved over the previous decades it wasn’t so bad. While they mortgaged their future to live lavishly today that was worse. We continue to live beyond our means and are beginning to see some consequences but we haven’t come close to accepting the lavish lifestyles we enjoyed (while Europe and the USA lived off past gains and off very advantageous trade with the rest of the world) is not possible any longer. We can’t just have everyone in Europe and the USA live exceeding well and the rest of the world support us. Eventually we have to realize this (or in any event we will experience it, even if we don’t realize it).

Those 2 factors need to be addressed for our economic future to be as bright as it should be.

Related: Too big too fail, too big to exist – Using Capitalism in Mali to Create Better Lives – Creating a World Without Poverty

We have had over 20 years of health care costs going up more than inflation – every year. That is an amazing (and horrifyingly bad) record. We need very strong evidence to conclude we can even just reduce the increase in damage done year after year by the broken health care system.

Getting to the point where we actually start reducing the increased damage done each year is a big leap from where we are (reducing the acceleration of damage [reducing from hugely above inflation to largely above inflation is better than not doing that but hardly a good sign – it is still worse than the year before, just the increase in badness is less than the increase in badness from the previous year).

Health care is so bad I often see people try to look at data and see that the rate of getting worse is declining and seeing that as a positive sign. Things are still getting worse. And they are already extremely bad. I really can’t see arguing for things getting worse more slowly as being something we should be happy with. Even just making tiny improvements (given how bad we have let things get over the decades is not good enough). We need to actually reduce spending on health care. Certainly, the absolutely least we can expect is increasing less than inflation (that is an extremely low expectation – though one the health care system has failed at for decades). We shouldn’t accept such horrible performance.

Once we actually can start making things better year after year (not just reducing the acceleration of badness) we likely have decades before we can reduce the enormous drain the USA health care system puts on all of us living here to a level that is just average for rich countries.

There are pockets of good things being done in health care but so so so much more is needed.

Great work by Serigraph.

Related: The USA Can’t Afford to Pay for the Current Health Care System – Resources to improve health care system performance – articles on improving health care

The USA has extremely poor broadband service (compared to other rich countries). It is slow and expensive. Those that support economic policies more in line with the USA than other nations have a great deal of explaining to do about why the options are so bad. It is similar to the broken health care system.

Those that support politicians leading to this state for broadband say they support “free markets.” In actuality, they support anti-competitive practices by extremely large companies (oligopolistic behavior). Free market theory (the original form) requires that no individual company can dictate to the market. You have free competition – no barrier to entry, no restraint on entry, customers can buy where they want… But the politicians we elect instead support policies and practices that restrain free trade and prohibit good solutions in order to benefit those that pay the politicians well. And then we vote for those politicians.

Those wanting the anti-competitive markets have won in our political system. The main thing I wish was clearer was that we stop pretending these people have some capitalist leaning. They are anti-capitalist. If they want to support the policies they do I wish they would be required by the voters to at least be honest. Unfortunately the voters elect them with their dis-honest representations. If the politicians were honest they would have a more difficult time being elected (because voters want to pretend they like capitalism even while voting for politicians that just seek to give special benefits to those that pay the politicians. And then the politicians claim to support markets, and business and consumers when really they just favor making anti-market legislation and regulation to favor their contributors. As long as we vote for people that claim to support capitalism but undermine it at every step to help their friends we do deserve to suffer. I just wish we could convince enough of our fellow citizens that flashy propaganda and repeating lies over and over isn’t the same as facts and truth.

1Gbps fiber for $70—in America? Yup.

Given the anti-competitive policies in the USA, if they have much success they will probably just be bought (or maybe as others suggest fought in other anti-competitive ways, but buyouts are normally easiest for actually strong competitor) to allow anti-competitive pricing and service to continue. The only real hope is someone with actual power sees it in their interest to fight against the entrenched interests. Google is the best hope I think. It isn’t that Google has nearly as much political power as those interests but they are smart and have the advantage of just having to expose the anti-competitive behavior and apply pressure.

The narrative the politicians and voters say they support is capitalism. But the reality is just those with the gold make the rules. But when this is made obvious and continually pressed by someone with power, clout, intelligence and political savvy it makes politicians and regulators hesitant to continue business as usual. Normally they just delay for a few months and then continue the corrupt practices. Google, plus others, plus lots of individual interest can fight that off – but it takes perseverance.

Related: USA Broadband is Slow. Really Slow. – Plugging America’s Broadband Gap – Eliminate Your Phone Bill – Net Neutrality: This is serious

I strongly support Elizabeth Warren and strongly support her for to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She would do a great deal to improve the economy of the USA. And she would do a great deal to improve the life of tens or hundreds of millions of people. We have allowed a few people to bribe our elected officials to distort markets to damage hundreds of millions and provide huge gains for a few. We need to support capitalism not crooked elites breaking capitalism to favor their allies at the expense of the economy and those who want to benefit from free markets. It is very difficult to impede the greed fueled distortions that politicians put in place to break free markets and provide huge benefits to those who pay them. Elizabeth Warren is one of the few that is knowledgeable and skillful enough to reduce the damage those people cause the economy and everyone else.

Why I Support Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB

There are few political appointments I care much about. They normally are so co-opted even if they have good ideas they can’t get anything done. Don Berwick is a great person to have lead health care reform. The system is so messed up I am skeptical he can actually get much done, but I also strongly support him.

Elizabeth Warren is excellent and wise enough to actually accomplish things even with those who will attempt to thwart and improvements in the financial system that move forward capitalism at the expense of a few nobles that are protected by political allies. I have no doubt those in power will still thwart most efforts to stop politically sanctioned distortion of markets to enrich a few people that then pay a portion of their gains to the politicians that let them ruin free markets for their own huge personal gains.

Very few political appointees make much difference. If Elizabeth Warren gets this position she will have a good chance and making a huge difference o the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people and the economy overall. That is true even though she will have to continually fight those politicians seeking to protect the anti-competitive benefits they have lavished upon those that pay them to enact policies that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

Related: If you Can’t Explain it, You Can’t Sell It – Middle Class Families from 1970-2005 (webcast of Elizabeth Warren) – What the Financial Sector Did to Us – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children

The very frustrating aspect of the broken health care system in the USA is that it has been an enormous problem for decades. It isn’t that we have just discovered we have a fatally poor health care system in the last few years. The broken system has been obvious for decades and keeps getting worse. Thankfully in the last few years more and more of those with clout in the current economic system are standing up to demand improvement.

Costs need to be removed from the system. Hundreds of billions a years should easily be removable by reducing paperwork and reducing waste in the system. As you say some reduction will also have to come in limiting spending that is being done now for worthwhile and worthless procedures. That should also easily save hundreds of billions a year. However in the decades of allowing this broken system to get worse and worse, it is not at all certain that merely taking $500 billion a year out of the costs will be enough.

It might well require eliminating even more medical work and reducing the income of those that are taking from the system now. My guess is the most logical places for reducing income come from massively overpriced drugs, overpaid specialists, overpaid executives in insurance companies. I suppose some might think nurses should be paid less, that isn’t my belief, but we will see what happens.

As sensible management of the system is adopted, over time, increasing the saving from eliminating waste should grow. Unfortunately we have wasted decades and so counting on us acting responsibly and adopting a focus on eliminating waste can’t be expected until we show a good 10-15 years of systemic effort on that front.

In response to: Paying for health care

Related: USA Spends Record $2.5 Trillion, $8,086 per person 17.6% of GDP on Health Care in 2009 – articles on improving the health care system in the USA – Broken Health Care System: Self-Employed Insurance – Health Insurers Propose Pricing and Coverage Without Respect to Health

A huge problem with current practices at American companies is that senior executives believe they personally are due what the company earns. The repeated ethical lapses perpetrated by the senior executives and supported by their well paid board continues to undermine the economy of the country.

Two events last week illustrate the level of disconnection with reality the current crop of ethically challenged senior executives.

First, we have the senior executives at the too big to fail financial institutions that did fail and were bailed out by taxpayers. We all know the economic calamity caused by these executives, throwing millions of people out of work, adding huge burdens to already overburdened future taxpayers with the huge spending governments engaged in, in order to successfully avoid what would have been a depression. Fewer people realize the government has been systemically transferring money to these large, too big to fail financial institution from millions of savers with policies directly providing billions in profits to all the large financial institutions that had failed.

So what did the senior executives that failed as spectacularly as anyone has ever failed economically in history do last week? They paid themselves tens of millions of dollars, paid for by all those who have received artificially lowered rates (through action by the Federal Reserve in order to save the economy and reward their member banks) on their savings which provided billions in profit to the failed large financial institutions. Just like 5 years ago, as they were doing their best to take such detrimental actions that would cause a depression (but for the government saving us from that outcome) they again use the excuse that they are just doing what all their colleagues are doing.

The lack of honor of these men is amazing. And the lack of honor of those who continue to treat these people as anything but pariahs is amazing. That we continue to pursue policies that enable and enrich too big to fail financial companies on the backs of those that save and in so doing provide billions in profits for the executives to treat as their personal bank accounts is sad.

The compatriots of those senior executives at Transocean showed the same disregard for honor, accuracy and truth. First, who is Transocean?

So with what was one of the worst (if not the worst) economic safety failures ever and 11 deaths in the explosion, this is what Transocean senior executives say, in their SEC filings:

Read more

I read various things stating that the USA is behaving in socialist (or similar ways). And there are often attempts to state that what the writer desires is capitalism and what they don’t like is an attack on motherhood, apple pie and capitalism.

I’m not sure when or where those writers would say capitalism did exist. It is true we have corporations using their power (political power and market power [oligopolies, monopolies]) to serve their interests. This would not surprise Adam Smith at all, from the Wealth of Nations:

He knew that is what they would attempt to do and said they had to be regulated to allow capitalism to function (but many that say they want capitalism don’t want any regulation of the sort they don’t want). Some seem to agree that some regulation is needed but any regulation they don’t want is seen as “socialist” or “anti-capitalist” or… At least the Libertarians are very consistent about practically no regulation – I question that being capitalism, but at least I understand their position.

Maybe the amount of direct cash payments and sheer amount of not very indirect subsidies (free money from the Fed, huge government contracts to political friends, tax breaks for big contributors [hedge fund managers, corporations using offshore tax havens…], quotas to aid political contributors) have been very high recently. But those changes are more a matter of degree than a qualitative change from the few years before that and few year before that and so on.

I am not sure if people are thinking back to the days when we had large trusts as “capitalism”? Some people equate “capitalism” with essentially no government (no FDA, no SEC, no DoD, no FDIC, no EPA…) – so then maybe the wild west or Afghanistan today is capitalism. I don’t. I would say that we have been become less interested in maintaining a free market (allowing oligopolies and monopolies to exist and distort markets) and an excessive amount of letting those with gold pay politicians to get special deals lately (the last 20-30 years). But it is really just a matter of being worse in those areas not some huge qualitative change.

We broke up trusts for awhile but lately have been supporting those with lots of clout using the clout to prevent competition.

Of course perfect competition is not really reasonable to expect in many markets in the real world. But the aim of shooting toward open and competitive markets is just not something we seem to have paid much attention to for decades. I’m not sure when we did. And paying attention to sensible things like externalities is still very weak. Even in the trust busting era the actions (to move toward a more capitalist economy where markets could function more freely) were fought by many. And while the efforts made a huge difference, it isn’t as though they went to anything close to perfect competition.

Countries like Hong Kong (questionably a “country”) and Singapore do lots of things that are nice capitalistic practices. But they have plenty of practices that are not very capitalistic. I’m not really sure what paragons of Capitalism those that appose regulating markets suggest as better models than the USA. Perhaps they believe the USA is the most capitalistic but it is still not capitalistic enough. A perfectly reasonable positions, I would think, but I am not sure if that is their belief or not.

Related: Ignorance of Capitalism – USA Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007

Banks continue to pay our politicians well to make sure they continue doling out special favors to the large banks. It is up to you, and your neighbors whether you hold politicians accountable for the actions they took to create the climate for the credit crisis and the huge favors granted (with your money) by politicians to those investment bankers. The bankers count on their money buying the politicians. I would have to say they are smart to believe that, though there is a small chance the invulnerability they feel is possible to pierce with enough foolish moves by the bankers and their friends (but in order for that to happen people would have to actually vote to elect ethical, intelligent and patriotic politicians instead of those who play the public for fools). I would put my money on the public again using their votes to elect those that will enrich special interests that pay the politicians at the expense of the country.

Banks Say No. Too Bad Taxpayers Can’t

$4.8 billion? That seems amazingly low for all the fraudulent activity these banks are suppose to have engaged in. But so long as they can foist the problem loans into the taxpayers hands they can claim to deserve billions in bonuses for themselves. The staggering magnitude of the special favors bought by the bankers is amazing. The politicians have shown they are supporting their banking friends while saying a few tough words. And most likely the politicians and bankers will be celebrating another successful election this fall. If we want to change the outcome we can. But we don’t seem interested in doing so.

Related: Paying Back Direct Cash from Taxpayers Does not Excuse Bank Misdeeds – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is as An Executive at One – Sabotaging Regulated Financial Markets Leads to Predictable Consequences – Congress Eases Bank Laws – 1999

Roubini Says Rising Sovereign Debt Leads to Inflation, Defaults

I agree that the damage done by those (which is nearly all of them) countries living beyond their means is significant. The USA and many countries in Europe and Asia (South Korea and China are two exceptions) have raised taxes on the future (by default – spending more than you have necessarily increases taxes later) to consume today. The strong emerging markets are another exception, many having learned their lessons and stopped spending money they didn’t have in the 1990’s.

However the richest countries have been spending money they don’t have for decades and the increase in government debt as a portion of GDP is an increasingly serious problem. It would be nice if the government of the rich countries could behave responsibly but it does not look like many of them have citizens who will elect honest and competent leaders. As long as they elect leaders that insist on raising taxes on the future (and lying to the populace by claiming they cut taxes – because they eliminate taxes today) those countries will pay severely for the irresponsible spending.

Saying you cut taxes when you just delay them is equivalent to saying I paid off my credit card bill when all I did was get 2 new credit cards, borrow all the money I owed on my original card, pay that one off, and then borrow more to increase my debt even more. Yes it is true I did pay off my original credit card, but that is hardly the salient point. My credit card debt increase. All that has happened in the USA since the Clinton administration had a balanced budget is politicians used a credit card thinking to lower taxes while necessarily increasing them in the future. You don’t reduce debt by spending money you don’t have.
Read more

Welcome to the False Recovery by Eric Janszen

He makes a decent point for companies, but the he flips back and forth between the need to save more (because we are buried in debt) and the need to spend more (because we need to grow the economy right now). And while I wouldn’t stake my life on it I wouldn’t be surprised that we have a strong economic rebound (it is also perfectly conceivable we have a next to no growth or even fall into a recession). But it seems to me the return to bubble thinking and spending beyond our means is making a strong comeback.

Another ok, point but we have hardly paying off anything of the previous living beyond our means. It would take decades at this rate.

So the problem is the saving are not actually resulting in increased ability to spend (first point above) – which is bad he says, because it means their won’t be more spending (because people won’t have the ability to spend). Then he says when banks lend the consumers money they will spend and the saving rate will go down (which is bad – though he doesn’t seem to really want more savings (because that means business won’t get increased sales).

The conventional wisdom likes to point out the long term problem of low savings rate but then quickly point out we need more spending or the economy will slow. Yes, when you have an economy that is living beyond its means if you want to address the long term consequences of that it means you have to live within your means. It isn’t tricky. We need to save more. If that means the economy is slower compared to when we lived beyond our means that is what it takes. The alternative is just to live beyond your means for longer and dig yourself deeper into debt.
Read more

Comments