Americans may stick to the two-party system as an artifact of the founding fathers' fear of faction. By limiting the number of parties to two Americans limit the number of explicit political divisions.
In Elkins and McKitrick's Age of Federalism* the authors emphasize the universal fear and dislike of faction among the public and the founding fathers in the 1790s and earlier. This came in part from the belief that competition among factions had divided and harmed democracies in antiquity. Madison and Hamilton wrote about this in the Federalist, but the discomfort with factions or private associations of any kind (other than religious ones) was widespread. One exception was the Sons of Liberty during the revolutionary period and another, which Elkins and McKitrick don't mention in their masterful work, was the Freemasons. Also, there were incipient labor unions in the 1790s. Labor courses don't typically discuss the dislike of labor unions evidenced in the famous Philadelphia Cordwainers case as associated with a broader distrust of associations of any kind, but that may have been the case. In the Cordwainers (shoemakers) case a Philadelphia court held the union to be a criminal conspiracy. The criminal conspiracy doctrine was changed in the 1830s under the means-end doctrine enunciated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Hunt. The point is, though, that the shift in attitudes toward unions coincided with a shift in attitudes toward associations more generally. Usually the shift is described as responding to greater power of workingmen in the 1830s associated with Jacksonian presidency.
But the point is that in general private associations of any kind were viewed with suspicion, and minor political parties may be sensed in this way.
During the 1790s, Elkins and McKitrick point out, there was the rise of an early association called the Democratic Societies. The purpose of these clubs was mild, basically to discuss political issues and oppose corruption in government. President Washington viewed these clubs with suspicion, calling them "self-created societies" as did many leading politicians. Two Democratic Societies in Washington Town and Mingo Creek, Pennsylvania were involved in the Whiskey Insurrection in western Pennsylvania in 1791-4 in which tax collectors were tarred and feathered; Inspector of the Excise John Neville's house was burned after an open battle; and as many as 6,000 armed Pennsylvania militia massed on August 1, 1794. President Washington handled the situation masterfully and ultimately sent militia to quell the revolt, but there was no violence beyond scattered incidents.
Elkins and McKitrick point out that Washington blamed the Democratic Societies for the insurrection (p. 484):
"If Washington ever had a fixed obsession, it was these societies, "self-created in the sense of having no sanction in popular authority, societies which had been up to nothing but mischief since the first ones were formed...He had felt very early that if they were not counteracted they would 'shake the government to its foundations'; and 'now if this uprising were not subdued, we could bid adieu to all government in this Country except Mob and Club Govt.'"
Washington wrote that (quoted on p.494, Elkins and McKitrick)
"all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle (of the duty of every individual to obey the established government)...They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests."
Elkins and McKitrick quote a Senate resolution recorded in the Annals of Congress:
"Our anxiety arising from the licentious and open resistance to the laws in the Western counties of Pennsylvania has been increased by the proceedings of certain self-created societies...proceedings in our apprehension founded in political error, calculated if not intended to disorganize our Government, and which...have been influential in misleading our fellow citizens in the scene of insurrection."
Might this early distrust of associations, which had disappeared by the time De Tocqueville published Democracy in America in 1835, be the source of the American commitment to the two-party system? While the conflict between the Republicans and the Federalists in the 1790s amounted to a battle between centralizers and decentralizers; proponents of government subsidy to business and proponents of Whiggish suspicion of centralized authority, and so was unavoidable, might the fear of more factionalization than the Federalist-Republican or later Democratic-Republican division be the distant remnant of this early American fear of faction?
*Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The Federalist Number 24 and the Scope of Government
In the Federalist Number 24 Hamilton makes the following statement about the powers that the Constitution confers upon the federal government:
"The powers are not too extensive for the OBJECTS of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess."
Are the powers that we have granted the federal administration today impractical for the management of national interests? I refer to the myriad of large-scale administrative tasks that the President and Congress are asked to review: Social Security, the Federal Reserve monetary system, Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education. These are broad, comprehensive programs of such scope and extent that no group of people, much less a single person, could competently oversee all of them.
Compare the problems of the federal government to the problems of General Motors. The president of General Motors is beset with complex details and administrative challenges concerning a handful of products: automobiles, parts, financing and some additional products. Yet, the management of this handful of products has proven too difficult for the management of General Motors to handle all that well, and the firm seems to be drifting to bankruptcy.
Are the politicians who serve in Congress or the President that much more capable than the executives of General Motors? Are the people whom the president appoints to his cabinet and to senior posts in the federal agencies that much more competent than the management of General Motors? In the case of Hurricane Katrina, it seemed that the government agencies are not competent at all. Yet, the public has burdened the federal government with such extensive powers that the management problems, ranging from control to budgeting to personnel selection are orders of magnitude more complex than the problems that confront the executives of an automobile company.
When Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote the newspaper articles that form the Federalist Papers, the United States of America had a population of three million. Today, the average state has a population of six million. Yet, the powers of government have been federalized to a much greater extent than Hamilton anticipated. This enormous concentration of managerial demands resulted from the perceived threat that industrial concentration posed to the economy. Yet, the concentration resulted in enhancing such concentration. The New Deal intensified the extent of concentration by establishing federal programs that replaced state discretion in fields like social security. The concentration was also enhanced by the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s, which required a degree of federal intervention to end Jim Crow laws and discrimination.
Today's problems are managerial as much as strategic or political: how to make social security work; how to best combine incentives for innovation with an equitable tax system; whether to extend or contract the scope of government; how to manage the nation's money supply to limit economic crisis and corruption. All of these are managerial problems that lend themselves to a range of strategic choices. The political arguments about them become more emotional and cantankerous as the various protagonists, Democratic and Republican, know less about each question. The expertise that fields like economics, sociology and business offer do not offer one or another optimal solution to any of these problems. In industry, trial and error has proven to work better than grand theory. Yet, subjects of considerable subtlety from the Iraqi War to the management of Social Security are pronounced upon with dogmatic rigidity in the pages of the daily newspapers and in the blogs.
Why can't a pragmatic delegation of complex managerial decision making to states, which are on average twice as large in population as the entire nation was in Hamilton's day, permit a multiplicity of solutions? Such a multiplicity would serve (a) to afford experimentation and learning about solutions; (b) to test alternative ideological approaches; (c) to resolve bitter conflict among Red and Blue proponents (d) to reduce and contain the risk of failure; and (e) to enhance democracy.
"The powers are not too extensive for the OBJECTS of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess."
Are the powers that we have granted the federal administration today impractical for the management of national interests? I refer to the myriad of large-scale administrative tasks that the President and Congress are asked to review: Social Security, the Federal Reserve monetary system, Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education. These are broad, comprehensive programs of such scope and extent that no group of people, much less a single person, could competently oversee all of them.
Compare the problems of the federal government to the problems of General Motors. The president of General Motors is beset with complex details and administrative challenges concerning a handful of products: automobiles, parts, financing and some additional products. Yet, the management of this handful of products has proven too difficult for the management of General Motors to handle all that well, and the firm seems to be drifting to bankruptcy.
Are the politicians who serve in Congress or the President that much more capable than the executives of General Motors? Are the people whom the president appoints to his cabinet and to senior posts in the federal agencies that much more competent than the management of General Motors? In the case of Hurricane Katrina, it seemed that the government agencies are not competent at all. Yet, the public has burdened the federal government with such extensive powers that the management problems, ranging from control to budgeting to personnel selection are orders of magnitude more complex than the problems that confront the executives of an automobile company.
When Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote the newspaper articles that form the Federalist Papers, the United States of America had a population of three million. Today, the average state has a population of six million. Yet, the powers of government have been federalized to a much greater extent than Hamilton anticipated. This enormous concentration of managerial demands resulted from the perceived threat that industrial concentration posed to the economy. Yet, the concentration resulted in enhancing such concentration. The New Deal intensified the extent of concentration by establishing federal programs that replaced state discretion in fields like social security. The concentration was also enhanced by the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s, which required a degree of federal intervention to end Jim Crow laws and discrimination.
Today's problems are managerial as much as strategic or political: how to make social security work; how to best combine incentives for innovation with an equitable tax system; whether to extend or contract the scope of government; how to manage the nation's money supply to limit economic crisis and corruption. All of these are managerial problems that lend themselves to a range of strategic choices. The political arguments about them become more emotional and cantankerous as the various protagonists, Democratic and Republican, know less about each question. The expertise that fields like economics, sociology and business offer do not offer one or another optimal solution to any of these problems. In industry, trial and error has proven to work better than grand theory. Yet, subjects of considerable subtlety from the Iraqi War to the management of Social Security are pronounced upon with dogmatic rigidity in the pages of the daily newspapers and in the blogs.
Why can't a pragmatic delegation of complex managerial decision making to states, which are on average twice as large in population as the entire nation was in Hamilton's day, permit a multiplicity of solutions? Such a multiplicity would serve (a) to afford experimentation and learning about solutions; (b) to test alternative ideological approaches; (c) to resolve bitter conflict among Red and Blue proponents (d) to reduce and contain the risk of failure; and (e) to enhance democracy.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Howard S. Katz's Portflolio Performance versus Fund Managers'
Katz's performance in blue, fund managers' in red. The data can be viewed here. Katz's newsletter can be purchased at http://www.thegoldbug.net.
Stock Prices, the Fed and America's Win-Lose Economy
What is the role of the Fed in generating income inequality because low interest rates boost the stock market while the monetary expansion that causes low rates creates inflation and so reduces real wages? In a web page on stock market returns Jeremy J. Siegel in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics notes:
"The average compound rate of return on stocks from 1802 through 1991 was 7.7 percent per year: 5.8 percent from 1802 to 1870, 7.2 percent from 1871 to 1925, and 10.0 percent from 1926 to 1991. The increase in the rate of return of stocks over time has fully compensated the equity holder for the increased inflation that has occurred since World War II. "
However, these numbers do not follow the contours of changing American policy concerning the Fed. Before 1913 there was no Fed. From 1913 to 1932 there was a Fed whose inflationary power was limited by a gold standard. From 1932 to 1971 Roosevelt had abolished the gold standard but the Bretton Woods monetary regime required that the US convert foreign dollar holders' dollars into gold. In 1971 Richard M. Nixon abolished the international gold standard.
To track the effects of Fed policy on real wages, inflation and stock market returns, I computed Dow Jones Industrial Average returns for four periods: the pre-Fed period from 1896 to 1913; the Fed/gold standard period from 1913 to 1932; the Fed/international gold standard only period from 1932 to 1971; and the gold standard-free period from 1971-2008. I also computed as best as I could with rough and ready Internet data (a) the inflation rate, (b) the Dow returns less inflation, (c) the compounded return on the Dow, (d) the change in real (inflation-adjusted) hourly wage, (e) the compounded real wage change and (f) the compounded inflation change for the four periods.
I was searching for income inequality data (the usual method of measuring income inequality is the "Ginni coefficient") but could not find a measure on the Web that goes back to 1896. I did find a partial measure in an article by Jared Bernstein and Laurence Mishel. To estimate the compound rates I relied on the 1040tools future value calculator here. Data on real hourly wage changes from 1896 to 1913 are available here. The Dow Jones website makes available its Dow Jones Industrial Average index from 1896. There are estimates available of stock returns from 1802, but what is gained in longitude is lost in comparability. Corporations prior to 1890 did not have the same legal attributes as they did after. Moreover, prior to 1880 stocks were limited as to their breadth of circulation, the nature of the firms for which they were traded and the risk involved because of changes in the corporate form of organization. Therefore, the 1896-1913 period will have to do as a pre-Fed measure to compare with subsequent periods.
The chart below (column A--see here for better view) shows that inflation was lower in the pre-Fed period than in any period since the establishment of the Fed in 1913. From 1896-1913 inflation averaged one percent (column H), while from 1913-1932, the Fed/gold standard period it averaged 1.7%. From 1932-1971, the international gold standard period it averaged 2.82% and during the gold standard- free period, thanks to Republican President Richard M. Nixon, it averaged 3.92%, the highest sustained inflation in American history. The media story that the Greenspan Fed achieved low inflation is but puffery by historical standards. The post-1980 era has a poor record with respect to inflation. At the same time, stock market returns have been boosted since the abolition of the gold standard in 1932 but not before. Column C shows that the Dow increased 108.1% from 1896 to 1913; it fell 23.32% from 1913 to 1932 because of the Great Depression and then it rose 1,143.7% from 1932 to 1971 and 1,266% from 1971 to 2008. Adjusting for inflation and compounding, stock market returns were 3.83% during the 1896-1913 period, -2.9% from 1913 to 1932, 5.93% from 1932 to 1971 and then 5.9% from 1971 to 2008. The key change seems to have been in 1932.
The establishment of the Fed and the abolition of the gold standard seem to have coincided with at first a dramatic increase in real wages and then a reduction from 1971 onward (see Columns F and G). From 1896 to 1913 real hourly wages increased 30.2% over 17 years or 1.6% compounded. From 1913 to 1932, the gold standard period of the Fed, real wages increased 45.5% or 2.12% compounded. This is in part due to reduced inflation during the Depression. However, and this contradicts my theory, from 1932 to 1971 real wages increased 171.8%, a compounded real wage change of 2.6%. Then, from 1971 to 2008, the gold standard-free period compounded real wages fell 27% or a compounded rate of -1.1%. This is a unique 37-year period, but it follows a period of very high wage growth from 1932 to 1971.
Despite the extensive discussion of income inequality, I could not find readily historical data available on Ginni coefficients or other income inequality measures going back to 1896. It is clear from the Bernstein and Mishel article that since 1972 income inequality as measured by the 90-10 cutoff has been increasing.
The data support the idea that changing the monetary regime boosted the stock market. The 5.9% real stock market returns post 1932 are 35% greater than the real, pre-Fed stock market returns from 1896-1913. If you factor in the Fed/gold standard period of 1913-1932 the boost is greater still. There seems to have been a correction in wages but not stock market returns from 1971 to 2008.
But there is conflicting evidence for the Fed/real wage connection. From 1932 to 1971 real wages increased by 2.6% per year, faster than in the 1896-1913 period, but then from 1971 to 2008 they fell by 1.1% per year. Arguably, the New Deal institutions such as labor unions sustained real wage growth for roughly forty years. Thereafter, there was a shift in employers' bargaining power. This may be because of the dramatic boost to monetary and credit expansion that the elimination of the gold standard permitted. Price inflation from 1971 to 2008 was 432% compared to 196.5% for the 1932 to 1971 period. The increasing price inflation may have enhanced firms' ability to substitute technology and equipment for labor and to finance overseas expansion sufficiently to counteract the wage gains made during the 1932-1971 period. As well, the effects of monetary expansion on real wages may be cumulative over many decades, and it is possible that 40 years of inflation resulted in a 40-year stimulus of demand for labor followed by adjustments due to even longer term inflationary effects. It may be that 40 years is the time required for inflation to influence real wages. However, it is also possible that labor unions were weakened during this period and so lacked the bargaining power to counteract employers' strategies. It is also possible that globalization has increased wage competition and has forced firms to be more competitive.
Rather than view stock returns as resulting from investor demand, as Professor Siegel does, it might be more logical to view them as ensuing directly from the Federal Reserve Bank's subsidization of the stock market. The Fed subsidizes the stock market by depressing real interest rates, which increases stock valuations and enables firms to borrow cheaply. Lower interest rates enable firms to substitute machinery and technology for workers to a greater degree than they otherwise would and to finance moves overseas. As well, workers may not be completely aware of inflation's effects on pay, and accept wages under illusory price stability. Thus, the Fed may have served as a wealth transferal device from workers to stockholders. The one fly in this story's ointment is the sharp increase in real wages during the 1932 to 1971 period.
"The average compound rate of return on stocks from 1802 through 1991 was 7.7 percent per year: 5.8 percent from 1802 to 1870, 7.2 percent from 1871 to 1925, and 10.0 percent from 1926 to 1991. The increase in the rate of return of stocks over time has fully compensated the equity holder for the increased inflation that has occurred since World War II. "
However, these numbers do not follow the contours of changing American policy concerning the Fed. Before 1913 there was no Fed. From 1913 to 1932 there was a Fed whose inflationary power was limited by a gold standard. From 1932 to 1971 Roosevelt had abolished the gold standard but the Bretton Woods monetary regime required that the US convert foreign dollar holders' dollars into gold. In 1971 Richard M. Nixon abolished the international gold standard.
To track the effects of Fed policy on real wages, inflation and stock market returns, I computed Dow Jones Industrial Average returns for four periods: the pre-Fed period from 1896 to 1913; the Fed/gold standard period from 1913 to 1932; the Fed/international gold standard only period from 1932 to 1971; and the gold standard-free period from 1971-2008. I also computed as best as I could with rough and ready Internet data (a) the inflation rate, (b) the Dow returns less inflation, (c) the compounded return on the Dow, (d) the change in real (inflation-adjusted) hourly wage, (e) the compounded real wage change and (f) the compounded inflation change for the four periods.
I was searching for income inequality data (the usual method of measuring income inequality is the "Ginni coefficient") but could not find a measure on the Web that goes back to 1896. I did find a partial measure in an article by Jared Bernstein and Laurence Mishel. To estimate the compound rates I relied on the 1040tools future value calculator here. Data on real hourly wage changes from 1896 to 1913 are available here. The Dow Jones website makes available its Dow Jones Industrial Average index from 1896. There are estimates available of stock returns from 1802, but what is gained in longitude is lost in comparability. Corporations prior to 1890 did not have the same legal attributes as they did after. Moreover, prior to 1880 stocks were limited as to their breadth of circulation, the nature of the firms for which they were traded and the risk involved because of changes in the corporate form of organization. Therefore, the 1896-1913 period will have to do as a pre-Fed measure to compare with subsequent periods.
The chart below (column A--see here for better view) shows that inflation was lower in the pre-Fed period than in any period since the establishment of the Fed in 1913. From 1896-1913 inflation averaged one percent (column H), while from 1913-1932, the Fed/gold standard period it averaged 1.7%. From 1932-1971, the international gold standard period it averaged 2.82% and during the gold standard- free period, thanks to Republican President Richard M. Nixon, it averaged 3.92%, the highest sustained inflation in American history. The media story that the Greenspan Fed achieved low inflation is but puffery by historical standards. The post-1980 era has a poor record with respect to inflation. At the same time, stock market returns have been boosted since the abolition of the gold standard in 1932 but not before. Column C shows that the Dow increased 108.1% from 1896 to 1913; it fell 23.32% from 1913 to 1932 because of the Great Depression and then it rose 1,143.7% from 1932 to 1971 and 1,266% from 1971 to 2008. Adjusting for inflation and compounding, stock market returns were 3.83% during the 1896-1913 period, -2.9% from 1913 to 1932, 5.93% from 1932 to 1971 and then 5.9% from 1971 to 2008. The key change seems to have been in 1932.
The establishment of the Fed and the abolition of the gold standard seem to have coincided with at first a dramatic increase in real wages and then a reduction from 1971 onward (see Columns F and G). From 1896 to 1913 real hourly wages increased 30.2% over 17 years or 1.6% compounded. From 1913 to 1932, the gold standard period of the Fed, real wages increased 45.5% or 2.12% compounded. This is in part due to reduced inflation during the Depression. However, and this contradicts my theory, from 1932 to 1971 real wages increased 171.8%, a compounded real wage change of 2.6%. Then, from 1971 to 2008, the gold standard-free period compounded real wages fell 27% or a compounded rate of -1.1%. This is a unique 37-year period, but it follows a period of very high wage growth from 1932 to 1971.
Despite the extensive discussion of income inequality, I could not find readily historical data available on Ginni coefficients or other income inequality measures going back to 1896. It is clear from the Bernstein and Mishel article that since 1972 income inequality as measured by the 90-10 cutoff has been increasing.
The data support the idea that changing the monetary regime boosted the stock market. The 5.9% real stock market returns post 1932 are 35% greater than the real, pre-Fed stock market returns from 1896-1913. If you factor in the Fed/gold standard period of 1913-1932 the boost is greater still. There seems to have been a correction in wages but not stock market returns from 1971 to 2008.
But there is conflicting evidence for the Fed/real wage connection. From 1932 to 1971 real wages increased by 2.6% per year, faster than in the 1896-1913 period, but then from 1971 to 2008 they fell by 1.1% per year. Arguably, the New Deal institutions such as labor unions sustained real wage growth for roughly forty years. Thereafter, there was a shift in employers' bargaining power. This may be because of the dramatic boost to monetary and credit expansion that the elimination of the gold standard permitted. Price inflation from 1971 to 2008 was 432% compared to 196.5% for the 1932 to 1971 period. The increasing price inflation may have enhanced firms' ability to substitute technology and equipment for labor and to finance overseas expansion sufficiently to counteract the wage gains made during the 1932-1971 period. As well, the effects of monetary expansion on real wages may be cumulative over many decades, and it is possible that 40 years of inflation resulted in a 40-year stimulus of demand for labor followed by adjustments due to even longer term inflationary effects. It may be that 40 years is the time required for inflation to influence real wages. However, it is also possible that labor unions were weakened during this period and so lacked the bargaining power to counteract employers' strategies. It is also possible that globalization has increased wage competition and has forced firms to be more competitive.
Rather than view stock returns as resulting from investor demand, as Professor Siegel does, it might be more logical to view them as ensuing directly from the Federal Reserve Bank's subsidization of the stock market. The Fed subsidizes the stock market by depressing real interest rates, which increases stock valuations and enables firms to borrow cheaply. Lower interest rates enable firms to substitute machinery and technology for workers to a greater degree than they otherwise would and to finance moves overseas. As well, workers may not be completely aware of inflation's effects on pay, and accept wages under illusory price stability. Thus, the Fed may have served as a wealth transferal device from workers to stockholders. The one fly in this story's ointment is the sharp increase in real wages during the 1932 to 1971 period.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
