Pages

Share This

Showing posts with label Capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Capitalism. Show all posts

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Lessons from Marx to market


 
Karl Marx
 Perhaps his views on capitalism could be considered to right what's wrong

WHAT ARE WE TO DO By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

TODAY we still face not just about the worst recession since the 1930s, but a challenge to the rich West's economic order. The poverty of orthodox economics is now exposed. It showed up capitalism as fundamentally flawed. Karl Marx had contentiously labelled capitalism as inherently unstable. Sure, some of Marx's predictions had failed: no dictatorship of the proletariat; nor has the state withered away. Even among Americans, just 50% surveyed was positive on capitalism; 40% not. Young people are markedly more disillusioned.

So, recent vogue for Marx should not surprise now that the euro stands on the precipice of collapse; and Jeffrey Sach's The Price of Civilisation pointed to US poverty levels not seen since 1929. Indeed, the Vatican's L'Osservatore Romano recently praised Marx's diagnosis of income inequality. Brazil elected a former Marxist guerrilla, Dihma Rousseff, as President in 2010. Marx may still be misguided, but his written pieces can be shockingly perceptive.

Marx and global disorder

Examine the daily European headlines: there is the spectre of a possible Greek default, an impending explosive bank-made disaster, the imminent collapse of the euro all reflecting a bewildering mixture of denial, misdiagnosis and bickering undermining European policy response.

As Mohamed El-Erian (CEO of Pimco, the world's largest bond dealer) observed: “Rather than proceeding in an orderly manner, today's global changes are being driven by disorderly forces ...” We see a crisis that has shaken the foundations of the prevailing international economic order.

It is remarkable that in Das Kapital Marx diagnosed capitalism's instability at a time when his contemporaries and predecessors (Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill) were mostly enthralled by its ability to serve human wants. George Magnus (UBS Investment Bank) wrote: “today's global economy bears some uncanny resemblances” to what Marx foresaw.

Marx had predicted that enterprises would need fewer workers as productivity rose, creating an “industrial reserve army” of unemployed whose very presence exerts downward pressure on wages.

Reality comes home readily with US unemployment still at 8.5% (13.3 million jobless). Nearly 5.6 million Americans have been out of work for at least six months; 3.9 million of them for a year or more. Last September, US Census Bureau data showed that median income (adjusted for inflation) in the US fell from 1973 to 2010 for full-time male workers aged 15 and above. True, the condition of blue-collar US workers is still a far cry from the subsistence wage and “accumulation of misery” that Marx figured. Again, French economist Jean-Baptiste Say had postulated that markets will always match supply and demand hence, gluts don't arise.

Against this conventional wisdom, Marx argued that over-production is endemic to capitalism simply because the proletariat isn't paid enough to buy up the supply capitalists produce. Recent experience showed that the only way middle-America managed to maintain consumption in the last 10 years was to over-borrow. When the housing market collapsed, consumers were left with crippling debt they can't service. The resulting default is still being played out.

Marx also predicted capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. Unbridled capitalism tends towards wild excesses. The 2007/08 Wall Street crisis had demonstrated how reckless deregulation (for example, in allowing banking leverage to rise unabatedly) proved disastrous for the financial system, attracting extensive moral hazard in massive bailouts.

“The Republican Party is en route to destroy capitalism,” radical geographer Prof David Harvey says, “and they may do a better job of it than the working class could.”

Now once again, we see unbridled capitalism threatening to undermine itself. European banks financially weak but politically powerful, are putting on the pressure to rescue their balance sheets. We see the same in the United States as home-owners struggle to stay afloat while renegotiating their mortgages. Similarly, creditor nations (e.g. Germany and China) are trying to shift the pain of rebalancing onto debtor nations, even though squeezing them threatens to be counter-productive and eventually, cause economic disaster.

Even so, prolonged economic weakness is contributing to rethinking on the value of capitalism. Countries scraping for scarce demand are now resorting to currency wars. America's senate has turned protectionist. Within Europe, the crisis turmoil is encouraging ugly nationalists, some racist. Their extremism is mild against the wrecking horrors of Nazism. Even so, it's unacceptable.



Unbalanced times ahead

The outlook for 2012 is dismal (my column 2011: Annus Horribilis dated Dec 31, 2011): recession in Europe, anaemic growth at best in the United States and a significant slowdown in emerging nations. We also know the world is far from decoupled. Export economies in Asia (South Korea, Taiwan and China) and commodity exporters (Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil) are already feeling the pain.

What's going to happen in Europe is critical. The eurozone is already in recession. Germany's economy contracted in 4Q 2011 at a time the region is looking to its biggest economy to give the zone a lift. Add to this, continuing credit crunch, sovereign debt problems, lack of competitiveness and intensifying fiscal austerity we have a serious downturn ahead.

Downside risks in the United States can be as serious fiscal drag, ongoing financial unwinding among households in the face of stagnant incomes, weak job creation, losses on wealth, rising inequality and political gridlock. In Japan, weak governance will show-up soon enough. Rising inequality is impacting domestic demand big time! This is also fuelling popular protests around the world, bringing with it social and political instability adding further risks to economic performance. Turmoil in the Middle-east gathers geopolitical risks of its own making persistent high oil prices will constrain growth. On present course, conditions will get worse before they get any better.

Policymakers are running out of options. Monetary policy is already less effective and ineffective where problems stem from insolvency (as in Europe) rather than liquidity. Fiscal policy is now well constrained. Whatever central bankers do, they cannot resolve problems best fixed by politicians such as the United States' incoherent deficit politics or Europe's fractured institutions and crucially, its lack of political will to act firmly.

Eventually, papering over solvency problems and reform issues will give way to more painful and disorderly restructurings, including exit from the euro. History teaches that financial crises are followed by years of weakness and stress. But some of the pain is self-inflected. Clarity on eurozone's future needs strong political leadership. There is really no excuse for the United States' fiscal paralysis as politicians bicker and dawdle. Indeed, even deeper austerity is quite unnecessary; it brings a vicious circle of decline, squeezing demand and raising unemployment, thereby hurting revenues, sustaining large deficits and draining away confidence.

Lessons from Japan

Japan has been experiencing the West's current woes for 20 years. Will Europe and United States suffer a similar “Japanese” future? There are important lessons.

First, get out of denial: admit past mistakes and take-on new challenges for the future. Japan had refused to admit its economic model has since failed. Similarly, Europeans are not ready to give up their welfare safety net even though already buried in huge debt. The United States, in preserving “free markets”, wouldn't build badly needed infrastructure because of aversion to state intervention. Let's face it: new realities need new ideas.

Second, recognise problems are really structural. Japanese politicians continue to rely on orthodox pump priming in the face of excessive regulations (which stymied competition) and belief its high savings will finance it. All it did was to pile up more debt up to 200% of GDP. The United States and Europe are now in a similar boat. Continuing Fed stimuli missed tackling underlying problems need smarter approaches to resolve the mortgage quagmire, and to extensively re-train misfit unemployed. Euro-zone needs reforms for a more integrated Europe to spur growth. Instead, governments bury their heads in the sand of Tobin taxes (a small financial transactions tax to discourage speculation) and other such diversions.

Third, embrace globalisation which Japan has yet to seriously acknowledge, while the rest of Asia had become more integrated. The United States is still “fighting” globalisation harbours an anti-trade mentality in the face of deficit politics. Similarly, Europe indulges too intensely in intra-regional trade; needs to build a competitive multilateral non-European network.

Finally, firm political leadership is critical. Psychologist and Nobel laureate Danial Kahneman pointed to behavioural economics showing people are “influenced by all sorts of superficial things in decision making” and so they procrastinate. Japan personifies procrastination. Likewise, political gridlock gripping United States and Europe led to more “kicking the can down the road,” instead of seriously changing national policy. Japan's history teaches political will as vital in instigating change without it, the West will likely turn “Japanese.” Ignore it and history may well repeat itself.

Middle class on the rise

The growing irrelevance and mistrust of politicians and governments are the result of massive economic slowdown and wasteful public spending. Emerging markets in contrast, have kept growth consistently going while keeping fiscal affairs well under control.

The political woes in China and India and even Malaysia (and possibly in Brazil and Indonesia) reflect, in my view, the early stirrings of political demands by the growing emerging middle class.

The World Bank estimated the middle class (people earning between US$60 and US$400 a month) trebled to 1.5 billion between 1990 and 2005 in developing Asia, and by one-third to 362 million in Latin America. Estimates by Asian and African Development Banks showed similar trends in Africa, Latin America and China in 2008.

As Marx said: “Historically, the bourgeoisie played a most revolutionary part” in Europe. As I see it, in emerging markets, that same but softer revolution is now on hand. Middle-class values are distinctive.

Surveys showed the middle classes consistently are concerned with free speech and fair elections; with opportunities and corruption. Success of Hazare's campaign against graft in India, and of street protests in Dalian and Xiamen in China over environmental abuses and the crash by high speed trains are some cases in point. Unlike unrest in Middle-east, middle class activism in India, China, Brazil and Chile is not aimed at bringing governments down. Rather, an attempt to reform government, not to replace it so far, at least, aimed against unaccountable, untransparent and undemocratic politics.

What to do?

Recession made plain the need for smarter government and highlighted weaknesses in designing policy to address issues on fairness and burden sharing. There are lots to learn and much to put right. I see an extraordinarily uncomfortable year ahead, with a wide range of possible outcomes, many unpleasant.

The euro-zone casts the darkest shadow. The US outlook is darkened by political uncertainty. The West is now being challenged to deliver not just growth (while necessary, is insufficient given high unemployment, and income and wealth inequalities) but “inclusive growth” for greater social justice. There is a deep sense that capitalism has become unfair. Calls for a fairer system will not go away. As Marx would insist, they will spread and grow louder.

Ironically, unlike emerging economies, the West is not equipped to deal with structural and secular changes after all, their recent history has been predominantly cyclical. Grasping the ways in which Marx was right marks the first step towards making things acceptable. The longer they fail to adjust, the higher the risks. So expect more volatility, unusual strains and even odd outcomes. But looking at the cup as half-full, the global paradigm shifts when they do come, will also present opportunities, not just risks. That can help ease the agony. But it won't make up for politicians' mistakes. Welcome to 2012!

Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching & promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbizweek@thestar.com.my


Saturday, December 3, 2011

Only Capitalists Can Save Capitalism


English: Harvard Business School, as seen from...Image via Wikipedia


Maggie Starvish

If capitalism was a stock, the market would appear rather bearish on its future.

Bank failures, economic crises, and middle-class riots across the globe appear symptomatic of large systemic weaknesses in the market system, highlighted by the 2008 global financial meltdown. Income inequality separating corporate leaders from their rank-and-file workers has become a hot-button issue in the upcoming presidential election. And in public opinion polls, business moguls are cushioned from the bottom of the reputation scale only by members of Congress. Fixes so far have largely eluded elected officials, government regulators, and tent city activists.

Capitalism at Risk: Rethinking the Role of BusinessBut there is one group of citizens with the power to make a difference: business leaders themselves, say Harvard Business School Professors Joseph L. Bower, Herman B. "Dutch" Leonard, and Lynn S. Paine, authors of Capitalism at Risk: Rethinking the Role of Business.

"Our book argues that if we don't begin to address, in a systemic way, the issues and problems and the negative outcomes and challenges [of market capitalism], then we are likely to see a lot more movements like Occupy Wall Street," says Leonard.

Capitalism at Risk grew out of preparations for Harvard Business School's centennial celebration in 2008. Bower, Leonard, and Paine felt it important to identify key issues that HBS should focus on going into its next 100 years, so they organized a series of forums on four continents with top business leaders, many of whom were HBS alums. "We set up the forums as opportunities for candid discussion among peers," says Paine.

The principal question asked of each participant was this: "If we stipulate that the system of market capitalism has been the source of remarkable economic growth, what are the prospects for continuing growth in the future? What aspects of the system at the level of firms, industries, nations, or multilateral institutions might cause serious difficulties?"



The principal response is summed in the book: "Market capitalism has proven to be a golden goose providing historically unimaginable economic benefits to many, and if we don't look out, we may kill it."

From prediction to fruition

Problems that forum participants cited included environmental degradation, trade breakdowns, and failure of the rule of law. Concerns over the lack of transparency into and oversight of the financial system were voiced by many. In all, 10 potential disruptors of the global market system were identified.

"One of the things we were told even before the economic crisis was that the financial system had grown to such a scale and was functioning in such a way that it was no longer necessarily lined up with the needs of the industrial system, or the way society wanted it to function," says Bower. "And lo and behold, we now have a crisis that illustrates what they were concerned about."
"If you believe that the problems ahead are likely to be very serious, and neither government nor business can address them, that doesn't leave you with many options."
—Lynn Paine
"Perhaps we should credit the participants in our forums for their prescience," notes Paine, reflecting on an e-mail she received recently from a participant on how much the world had changed since 2007. "The question now is whether we can mobilize business leadership on a sufficient scale to make a difference."

"Our view is the system could go, if companies don't step up," says Bower. "It's companies that have the skill sets necessary to go from a vision to making something a reality."

Considering the number of corporations whose annual revenue is larger than the GDP of many small countries, the proposition makes sense. The authors argue that the problems are systemic, and who better to attack huge issues than people who run small, medium, and huge organizations.

Bower, Leonard, and Paine are prepared to have their views challenged. Even some of the forum participants, says Leonard, "didn't think what we are calling for is either appropriate for or likely to come from business and business leaders." And while Leonard agrees that some of the criticisms are valid, "the alternative of having business sit this one out is too risky."

Adds Paine: "Of course we recognize that there are serious obstacles to the view we recommend," including a lack of structure, tools, and incentives within businesses to do the sort of work that's needed, and a lack of skills and incentive on the part of business leaders to operate on the global political front. "But we see those as challenges to be overcome rather than fatal flaws in the idea. If you believe that the problems ahead are likely to be very serious, and if you believe that neither government nor business can address them, that doesn't leave you with many options."

"There is clearly political content to what we are suggesting," says Bower. "We talk about the need for leaders of companies to develop skill sets that they might not have—a lot of our business leaders have not been brought up to be comfortable in dealing with politicians. So part of what we're talking about is learning how to operate in the public arena without getting into trouble. It's hard."

Addressing the problems

HBS has made significant strides in preparing students to be the kind of leaders that the book calls for, says Leonard, noting as one example the required first-year MBA course Leadership and Corporate Accountability. "Where I think we still have far to go is in teaching the skills for operating in the high-conflict, low-authority zone outside your own firm. Most of what we teach is about how to optimize within your firm, where you tend to have a high level of authority and where there is general agreement on goals.
"Where I think we still have far to go is in teaching the skills for operating in the high-conflict, low-authority zone outside your own firm."
Dutch Leonard
"By contrast," Leonard continues, "when our book calls on business leaders to exercise leadership outside their firms, we are inviting them to operate in a domain where they have little authority and where there is great conflict over what the most important goals are. The skills to do this involve what we might call small 'p' political skills—and we don't teach nearly as much of that as we could and should, nor do we have many cases about business leaders operating in that high-conflict, low-authority domain."

Giving students a broader perspective outside the HBS classroom is another possibility, such as pairing B-school students with other Harvard students who are studying similar big problems, says Paine, who cofounded and served for five years as course head of Leadership and Corporate Accountability.

"For example, I have in mind a course that would bring together students from HBS, Harvard Law School, and the Kennedy School to explore, as board members and as leadership teams of companies, what could be done … both through innovative business strategies and through innovative institutional arrangements."

According to Paine, many HBS students share the concerns voiced in the book and aspire to the type of entrepreneurial leadership needed for reform. "It's critical that we harness the energy and ideas our students bring to these challenges, and that we as a faculty help them develop the skills and capabilities needed to practice this kind of leadership."

So even as the market system has created threats to its own sustainability, it can also reward enterprising companies of any size that can turn these problems into opportunities. The book provides examples of business efforts that promote social good without sacrificing profit: a mobile communications rollout in rural China that "extended the benefits of participating in the market system to millions of people" while increasing profits and growth at the country's largest telecommunications firm; "a boutique asset-management firm that invests in companies whose business models are aligned with the needs of a sustainable global economy."

But Capitalism at Risk leaves a lot of the heavy lifting in the hands of business leaders. "We're pretty clear that we don't have all the answers," says Bower, "but we're also pretty clear that we need action."

The form that action takes remains to be seen. But it's worth noting that while members of the "Occupy" movements may be retreating for the winter, the problems they have highlighted are likely to remain with us for some time.

About the author:Maggie Starvish is a writer based in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Related post:

We need to talk about capitalism, say CEOs