FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Economics: the Science of Plunder

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

— Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

In these days of economic stagnation, misery and insecurity, housing bubbles and the growing precariate it seems appropriate to speculate on what Shakespeare  might have written today were he penning a modern rewrite of Henry the Sixth. His character was voicing support for Jack Cade whose revolutionary vision cast lawyers as paper shuffling parasites ruining the lives of the common people. In the past twenty-five years that ignoble role has been usurped by economists. I liked them better when economics was called the dismal science – now the profession is simply a self-satisfied apologia for the plunder of society’s wealth by the greedy and ruthless 1% – the ‘masters of mankind.’

Economics is no longer a science, if it ever was. It is a religion whose priests bend every effort to make the dogma of neo-liberalism impervious to its disastrous outcomes. If it were a science the facts would long ago have prevailed and they would have denounced the ideology from the rooftops.

But, no, instead we get articles on a weekly basis about Canadians’ staggering debt load and the only attempt at explanation is so-called ‘human nature’ i.e. “Gee, people just don’t seem to be worrying – they’re ignoring the warnings.” Then there’s the ingenious concept of “recency bias” developed by someone in the field of  ”behavioural finance” (who knew?). Recency bias means, according to the Globe’s Rob Carrick, “People are looking at recent events and projecting them into the future indefinitely.”

That’s it? That’s the best the economics profession can come up with to explain Canadians’ indebtedness catastrophe? It’s all about human behaviour, written in stone, so I guess we might as well just sit back and observe the meltdown in the comfort of our economist’s middle class lifestyle.

But of course that’s the very thing they should be examining – people’s determination to live the middle class life style that our entire culture is based on and which the sophisticated marketing machine tells us we must have – or we are losers. They need to explore this classic bait-and-switch: manipulate people to buy stuff and then suppress their incomes so they can’t.

Carrick’s article detailed just how serious the problem is – repeating numbers that have been quoted numerous times:   over 700,000 people would be financially stressed if interest rates rose by even a quarter of one percent. One million would face that circumstance if they rose by 1 percent.  The Canadian Payroll Association regularly tracks people’s financial stress and its recent survey revealed 48 per cent of people said “..it would be tough to meet their financial obligations if their paycheque was delayed even by a week. Almost one-quarter doubted they could come up with $2,000 for an emergency expense in the next month.”

I’m sorry, but that’s insane in a country that creates as much wealth as Canada does. But don’t expect “the profession” to shed any light on this situation. Why? Because economists suffer from SIB – Self-Interest Bias, a condition rooted in their elitist role in society. Actually it’s not unlike “recency bias” – they’ve been doing fine for the past 25 years rationalizing this madness so they will just project that success “… into the future indefinitely.”

Except that there really is still a problem: the economic policies they keep endorsing are a disaster for all but the few. The middle class can only sustain its standard of living through ever-increasing debt; the vast majority of the new wealth created every year (such as it is) goes to the top 5%; the working class has been largely relegated to service jobs (we have lost 540,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000) with no security, lousy pay, no benefits and – increasingly – part-time work. There is not a single minimum wage in the country that comes anywhere near a living wage. The gap between rich and poor is now the same as it was in 1928.  Young people’s university degrees are both outrageously expensive and often worthless.

And small and medium businesses are virtually all struggling because the government’s obsession with foreign trade leaves them (over 90 percent of whom export nothing) on their own to cope with the stagnant incomes of their customers.  And what do economists say about all this? Not much. They observe  and then move on, waiting for the next batch of statistics proving, once again, that the brave new world of unfettered markets and unregulated corporate power cannot and will not deliver the goods. Of course, if they were honest they would acknowledge it was never intended to: these outcomes were predicted from the start by the handful of heretical economists who choose not to join the courtiers of masters of mankind.

To distract us from our grim present and grimmer future the priesthood talks endlessly about the Bank of Canada’s interest rate as if changing it could actually improve peoples’ lives.  But the Bank of Canada can  accomplish one of only two possible results: nothing (by keeping rates below 1%) or disaster (by raising rates and popping the housing bubble).

The fact is, those trapped within the context of neo-liberal policies don’t have a clue what to do.

But everyone knows it’s going to get worse. The quality of jobs in Canada continues to fall with low-paid jobs making up an increasing proportion of the total (we are already second in the OECD) with those earning less than the average wage falling furthest behind. This is a continuation of a twelve year trend. Sixty-one percent of Canadian workers have seen their wage gap increase. These are the conclusions of a recent CIBC report, which also concluded that only 15 percent of people aged 15-24 can be defined as genuinely “employed.”

If economists and politicians (NDP – please note) actually want to change this situation before it descends into full-on dystopia they must, as a UN report recently recommended, “…jettison neoliberal ideology.” That would include a long list of policies but let’s just take one: “labour flexibility.” Inequality, flat incomes, work-life imbalance, and unsustainable debt can all to a large extent be traced to this deliberate government policy. Just reversing it would start a recovery.  That means returning EI to an actual insurance program, reinstating the federal Canada Assistance Plan which provided strings-attached (read humane rates) money to the provinces for social welfare, increase the minimum wage to living-wage levels, enforce and enhance labour standards and their enforcement, and make it easier, not harder, for unions to organize.

But don’t expect economists to get on side.

More articles by:

MURRAY DOBBIN, now living in Powell River, BC has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist for over forty years.  He can be reached at murraydobbin@shaw.ca

December 13, 2018
John Davis
What World Do We Seek?
Subhankar Banerjee
Biological Annihilation: a Planet in Loss Mode
Lawrence Davidson
What the Attack on Marc Lamont Hill Tells Us
James McEnteer
Breathless
Ramzy Baroud
The Real Face of Justin Trudeau: Are Palestinians Canada’s new Jews?
Dean Baker
Pelosi Would Sabotage the Progressive Agenda With a Pay-Go Rule
Elliot Sperber
Understanding the Yellow Vests Movement Through Basic Color Theory 
Rivera Sun
The End of the NRA? Business Magazines Tell Activists: The Strategy is Working
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Historic Opportunity to Transform Trade
December 12, 2018
Arshad Khan
War, Anniversaries and Lessons Never Learned
Paul Street
Blacking Out the Yellow Vests on Cable News: Corporate Media Doing its Job
Kenneth Surin
The Brexit Shambles Rambles On
David Schultz
Stacking the Deck Against Democracy in Wisconsin
Steve Early
The Housing Affordability Crisis and What Millennials Can do About It
George Ochenski
Collaboration Failure: Trump Trashes Sage Grouse Protections
Rob Seimetz
Bringing a Life Into a Dying World: A Letter From a Father to His Unborn Son
Michael Howard
PETA and the ‘S’-Word
John Kendall Hawkins
Good Panopt, Bad Panopt: Does It Make A Difference?
Kim C. Domenico
Redeeming Utopia: a Meditation On An Essay by Ursula LeGuin
Binoy Kampmark
Exhuming Franco: Spain’s Immemorial Divisions
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Democratizing Money
Laura Finley
Congress Must Reauthorize VAWA
December 11, 2018
Eric Draitser
AFRICOM: A Neocolonial Occupation Force?
Sheldon Richman
War Over Ukraine?
Louis Proyect
Why World War II, Not the New Deal, Ended the Great Depression
Howard Lisnoff
Police Violence and Mass Policing in the U.S.
Mark Ashwill
A “Patriotic” Education Study Abroad Program in Viet Nam: God Bless America, Right or Wrong!
Laura Flanders
HUD Official to Move into Public Housing?
Nino Pagliccia
Resistance is Not Terrorism
Matthew Johnson
See No Evil, See No Good: The Truth Is Not Black and White
Maria Paez Victor
How Reuters Slandered Venezuela’s Social Benefits Card
December 10, 2018
Jacques R. Pauwels
Foreign Interventions in Revolutionary Russia
Richard Klin
The Disasters of War
Katie Fite
Rebranding Bundy
Gary Olson
A Few Thoughts on Politics and Personal Identity
Patrick Cockburn
Brexit Britain’s Crisis of Self-Confidence Will Only End in Tears and Rising Nationalism
Andrew Moss
Undocumented Citizen
Dean Baker
Trump and China: Going With Patent Holders Against Workers
Lawrence Wittner
Reviving the Nuclear Disarmament Movement: a Practical Proposal
Dan Siegel
Thoughts on the 2018 Elections and Beyond
Thomas Knapp
Election 2020: I Can Smell the Dumpster Fires Already
Weekend Edition
December 07, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Steve Hendricks
What If We Just Buy Off Big Fossil Fuel? A Novel Plan to Mitigate the Climate Calamity
Jeffrey St. Clair
Cancer as Weapon: Poppy Bush’s Radioactive War on Iraq
Paul Street
The McCain and Bush Death Tours: Establishment Rituals in How to be a Proper Ruler
Jason Hirthler
Laws of the Jungle: The Free Market and the Continuity of Change
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail