helicopter drop, Kalecki, and Lenin

To fix the economy, let's print money and mail it to everyone by Dylan Matthews

Interview with Brown political economist Mark Blyth and hedge fund manager Eric Lonergan

Mark Blyth: There was a brilliant piece in 1943 by the Polish economist Michał Kalecki. It was a critique of full employment policy. He said a problem with Keynesian macroeconomics is that if we get away with it, if you have permanently full employment, two things happen. One, job switching becomes costless and employers no longer have the whip hand. There will be a political revolution, employers will find economists who'll say it's unsustainable, and they'd try to overturn it. He wrote that in 1943, and that was basically the neoliberal revolution foretold.
Two, capitalism embodies an ethic that you must earn your crust, and if you create an economy whereby the crust is there without being earned, it's deeply disturbing on some political, ideological, and moral level. The other thing, besides the vested interest of employers in stopping full employment, is the idea that there must just be something wrong with doing this. 

Deep down inside, many people refuse to accept something simple: central banks, in a fiat money system, are just printing. There's no corresponding liability besides the balance sheet convention of listing cash as a liability. There's nothing claimed against anything else like gold. All that matters is the credibility of policy — that the place is reasonably well-run — and that you have the intergenerational ability to tax. If you have both of these things, you're just printing. So instead of printing it, shoving it through the banking system and hoping some of it trickles down after it's blown the stock market up to 15,000, why not just give people the cash?

And as Chris Dillow wrote:

I agree with Steve that the rich hate inflation not least because it creates uncertainty. (There's also the historical point that the inflationary 70s also saw the nadir of the fortunes of the 1%: this might be just coincidence, but why risk it?) 

This alone creates a bias to tighten. What amplifies this bias is that the rich can tolerate mass unemployment. Nick's parallel with the 1930s is, I think, irrelevant. Back in the 30s, mass unemployment was a threat to the rich because workers could see a plausible alternative to the existing order in communism. Today, by contrast, there are no big feasible alternatives to capitalism and so unemployment is not a political danger - which means it is more tolerable. 

This answers Peter's question: why has the Keynesian coalition vanished from modern politics? It's because it is no longer politically necessary. It was not Keynes who convinced capitalists of the need for full employment but Lenin.

The timeline is a little off. The Soviet Union didn't collapse until the earlier 90s, but basically things turned in the 70s. America destroyed Vietnam in order to save it and Nixon turned the Chinese Communists against the Soviets. Then Reagan and Thatcher came in the 80s as Mitterand's Socialists buckled under pressure from the bond vigilantes.

dangerous times for the 1 percent

Class interests by Simon Wren-Lewis

So if you wanted to critique my (and Kalecki’s) characterisation of the views of the wealthy, you might say that keeping unemployment above its natural rate is not a sustainable strategy (and therefore not rational). To which I would respond maybe, but there could be a reason why now, like the 1980s, is a particularly important time to keep unemployment high for a while. 

The reason for this is that the aftermath of financial crisis is extremely threatening to the neoliberal political consensus and the position of the 1%. I remember saying shortly after the crisis that the neoliberal position that government regulation was always bad and unregulated markets always good had been blown out of the water by the crisis. This was politically naive, in part because a crisis caused by unregulated markets was morphed by the right into a crisis caused by too much government debt, or too many immigrants. But that fiction will not be sustainable once a strong recovery has reduced both government debt and unemployment. For the 1%, these are very dangerous times, and they want to be on favourable territory for the battles ahead.

See Piketty.

Austerians

While thinking about public choice theory, Daniel Kuehn links to Krugman and Noah Smith about the push for austerity. Krugman links to Naomi Klein and Mike Konczal.

NLRB

NLRB Decision Could Make McDonald's Liable for Labor Practices of Franchisees by Julie Jargon

The National Labor Relations Board has notified McDonald's Corp. MCD +0.04% that it will start allowing workers filing labor complaints to treat the fast-food giant as a "joint employer" with its franchisees, a decision that could make the company liable for the labor practices of the thousands of independent operators who own its franchises. 

McDonald's employees, through a campaign organized by the Service Employees International Union, have alleged that they were fired for joining labor unions and have filed several lawsuits alleging that they were underpaid or had expenses deducted that left them below state or federal minimum-wage levels. 

If the NLRB's preliminary decision holds, it could set a precedent for the largely franchised fast food industry, in which parent companies are currently not held liable for the labor practices of their franchisees. Approximately 90% of McDonald's more than 14,000 U.S. restaurants are owned by franchisees. 

"We believe there is no legal or factual basis for such a finding, and we will vigorously argue our case at the administrative trials and subsequent appeal processes which are likely to follow from the issuance of the complaints," McDonald's said in a memo sent on Tuesday to franchisees about the NLRB decision, which was seen by The Wall Street Journal.