Yves Smith's terrific ECONned, pointed to an ancient 1961 article from Time. The article suggests "a waning of controversy among economists," which meant that the article reflected the milquetoast economics of the leading democratic economists and the less rabid attitude of the Republicans. Galbraith merited a brief mention in which the author noted that most economists reject his view.
Anon. 1961. "The Economy: The Pragmatic Professor." Time (3 March).
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,897654,00.html
"Walter Heller is usually tagged as a "liberal," but he departs so often from what used to be liberal cliches that the identity tag is a bit blurred. A more descriptive label, one that he applies to himself, is "pragmatist." That is the vogue word among economists today, the term that most of them use to label themselves and one another. When economists call themselves pragmatists, they mean that they are the opposite of dogmatists, that they are wary of broad theories, that they lean to the cut-and-try approach to public problems, and that they believe it is possible to improve the functioning of the economy by tinkering with it."
Heller said, "My awareness of the seriousness of the situation is balanced by a conviction that we can do something about it -- and without interference in the basic freedom of our capitalist system."
"By broadening the areas of fact, the professionalization has narrowed the areas of theory, of disagreement, and blurred the old boundaries between liberals and conservatives."
The article emphasizes:
"One result has been a waning of controversy among economists. Today, says Kenneth Arrow, "you have to find a real crackpot to get an economist who doesn't accept the principle of Government intervention in the business cycle"."
"A decade ago economists identifiable as liberals were automatically prolabor, rejected the idea that wage increases could be economically harmful. Today Heller, like most other economists, holds that "excessively generous wage bargains'' between unions and management can lead to "cost-push" price upcreep."
Hmm, its true, I read it last month ago, and I agree with it.
ReplyDelete"Today Heller, like most other economists, holds that "excessively generous wage bargains'' between unions and management can lead to "cost-push" price upcreep."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting comment. I wonder why it is that I've virtually never seen any one use the term "excessively generous" followed by executive compensation or corporate profit margins? Are there any "professional" economists that might think along such lines?
Michael Perelman said:
ReplyDeleteToday Heller, like most other economists, holds that "excessively generous wage bargains'' between unions and management can lead to "cost-push" price upcreep."
This claim that unions can push prices is not a factual claim in the world of today. Prices are controlled by markets. Unions can only compress accounting profits and perhaps put enterprises out of business. They may send jobs abroad or to areas that do not embrace unions.
If an owner can get more for his output he will do so. He will not be sitting around waiting on a union to demand more wages as an excuse to raise prices.
Trucker: "If an owner can get more for his output he will do so. He will not be sitting around waiting on a union to demand more wages as an excuse to raise prices."
ReplyDeleteAmen, and that point can't be made often enough. The general media is the culprit in the distribution of the canard that unions raise prices. If that were true than so too would it be true that energy companies, landlords and shipping companies cause prices to rise. Each participant in the production and distribution process wants their share of the income. Workers are no different and probably no less deserving of their share. As noted above, when was the last time some economist used the term "too generous" followed by executive compensation
or corporate profit margins?