Global New Year's Resolution Should Be To Decrease Income Inequality Everywhere

Jan. 6, 2010 - PRLog -- The obvious temptation at this time of year is to a) look backwards – especially given the “end” of a decade [depending on how you count it], and b) go with the “Top Ten” theme – especially given that the New Year is 20-“10.”

But we’re going to keep it simple and look forward with only ONE resolution:

the single MOST important aim for the world economy in not just this year, but the whole decade, is to radically decrease the levels of income inequality in practically every country in the world.

The reasoning is surprisingly simple.

Due to low interest rates nearly everywhere, there is no lack of liquidity – i.e., there’s PLENTY of money sloshing around the globe.

Despite the huge availability of cash, economic growth in the advanced countries – the US / Europe / Japan – is basically stagnant – a fact that should, although it won’t, kill forever the persistent “monetarist illusion”:

that the ONLY thing that matters in economic activity is the money supply, and its “controller,” namely interest rates.

If the monetarists were right, the effective zero interest rates prevailing now, and for the past several years, should mean the world economy would be humming along nicely, instead of the creaking mess – with some happy exceptions, like China and India, for reasons we noted in our Christmas Wishes for the World Economy post – we’ve been and are still experiencing.

So if economic growth doesn’t come from lots of cash floating around, and low / zero interest rates, where does it come from ???

The SHORT answer was provided by the dominant / then discredited / now returning with a vengeance English economist John Maynard Keynes – and the LONG answer, which we’ll discuss sometime in the future, comes from the Austrian / American “long-wave” theorist Joseph Schumpeter.

In essence, Keynes argued, the key to economic growth is to increase effective demand, and he spent his considerable talents devising both theoretical and practical ways to make that happen, above all during the Depression of the 1930s, when the inadequacy of “classical” economic theories and policies had become manifestly clear, in a fashion similar, albeit not identical, to the situation we are living through today.

[From an intellectual point of view, Keynes’ biggest problem is he was never able to explain the historical fluctuations of effective demand, which is why his extremely powerful policy prescriptions – which we will outline momentarily – need to be supplemented from a theoretical perspective by Schumpeter, whose long-term approach explains the theoretical questions Keynes so adroitly avoided … but more on that in the future.]

So what does it mean to increase effective demand ???

Very simply, it doesn’t mean changing the total amount of money sloshing around the world.

It means putting that money in different hands, basically those of people who will either spend it right away, or, at a slightly higher level, will invest it right away –

especially in projects likely to promote long-term economic growth in the future [the logic of which can be discovered via a Schumpeterian framework, but, again, that is a subject for a different column].

In this context, the lack of global economic growth at the moment stems from not the availability of money – of which there is plenty – but the fact that money is in the wrong hands, both in terms of people and institutions.

Put bluntly, the people who now have most of the money are those who already have plenty of it – financiers from “too big to fail” banks / the top echelons of insurance companies, above all the health “care” business / and others from the higher rungs of the income scale.

While these people do spend some of their money, the vast amounts of it they have mean they’re not going to spend anywhere near all of it. Indeed, their MAIN concern, understandably, is to protect their money – which means finding places to put it, or invest, that are going to be as safe as possible for THEM.

This may be smart for them from a microeconomic [small-scale] point of view, as individuals and families. But it also means, from a macroeconomic [large-scale] point of view, that money isn’t doing very much in terms of promoting the buying and selling that powers the economy – global / regional / national / local – as a whole.

[This also points out, by the way, the utter nonsense of the neo-classical dogma that “every individual, acting in her own self-interest, will unintentionally produce a positive result for society as a whole” – the ultimate example of what the brilliant English historian and theorist E.H. Carr called “the myth of harmony of interests”.]

Why?

Because the key point about money is it’s not the amount that counts – it’s the speed and number of times that money changes hands, its so-called “velocity” or “multiplier effect.”

Put simply, money just sitting somewhere doesn’t do very much for the economy as a whole, even if it benefits the “owners” by earning them interest / dividends etc.

Money DOES do something for the economy as a whole when it keeps moving – when it goes from one person or business to the next, who then pass it on to their suppliers / creditors, who then use it to buy what they need, etc etc etc.

And what’s true for rich people is also true for institutions as well, albeit in a slightly different way.

Put simply, the current crisis began as a problem for financial institutions like banks and insurance companies that had made bad bets about their investments.

When this happened in the past – which it had, and not infrequently – it created serious problems, but nothing like the financial crisis that exploded in Black September 2008, when the US government failed to intervene to save Lehman Brothers.

Read More at http://www.economywatch.com/:

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-...

# # #

EconomyWatch.com is the world's largest global, independent, economics community. Every month we serve over 750k users, who read and discuss economics, investing and finance topics.