PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.
We're continuing our series of interviews
with Bob Pollin about his new book, Back to
Full Employment.
And he joins us again from Amherst, Massachusetts,
where he is codirector and founder of the
PERI institute.
Thanks for joining us again, Bob.
ROBERT POLLIN: Thank you very much, Paul,
for having me again.
JAY: So if you haven't watched part one, go
watch part one.
Part two, the question is: is full employment
under capitalism possible?
So, Bob, some people would suggest the answer
to that question is: if full employment under
capitalism was possible, they wouldn't be
capitalists.
In other words, if they did implement the
kind of policies you're talking about, it
would just go against their nature.
And so how do you answer that?
POLLIN: We have evidence that full employment
has operated under capitalism.
It certainly operated, as we talked about
in the last segment, briefly in the United
States in the late '60s and late '90s.
It certainly operated in Europe in the early
period after World War II.
We have a lot of evidence, for example, in
the Nordic countries.
Sweden is a really good example of--because
the unions in Sweden had a lot of political
power, they were able to do some very interesting
experiments to push the economy toward full
employment and stay there.
The unions had enough power that they could
think about macroeconomic policies to push
the economy to full employment, while the
unions themselves were focused as well on
inflation control, restraining inflationary
pressures, so that you could actually sustain
the full employment that would be good for
workers over time.
And so we do have experience that this has
happened.
It is a different kind of capitalism.
It is a capitalism in which workers have more
power, unions have more strength, the concern
for the well-being of working people is much
higher than it is today.
And that's the kind of society I think we
need to move toward.
Where we go after that, okay, we can talk
about where we go after that, but just to
get to that point in which public policy is
genuinely focused on providing a maximum amount
of job opportunities and well-being for people,
to get to that point in our policy debates
would be a major achievement.
JAY: And we'll get into that, how you think
we get there, a little further in this series
of interviews.
But let's kind of go step by step here.
So give us--trace us a little bit about the
history of this debate.
As you said in part one, Marx says it's in
the interest of capitalists to have a certain
level of unemployment because it controls
wages, and then Keynes kinds of counters that
argument to some extent in terms of the role
government could play.
So give us a bit of the historical background
here.
POLLIN: Alright.
Well, I go through what I think are the four
major thinkers on the theory of unemployment.
The first is Marx, and it was Marx who said
that having a reserve army of labor, a lot
of unemployed people, is necessary for the
functioning of capitalism, because if you
had no unemployment, then workers' bargaining
power would go up, workers' wages would go
up, capitalists' profits would get squeezed.
Okay, that's Marx.
Now, Keynes came in with a different view.
Keynes was thinking more as a technician within
the framework of capitalism.
And he said, if you do not get to full employment
through private investment in the economy,
then the government should step in and engage
in public investment.
His term, Keynes's own term, was "somewhat
comprehensive socialization of investment".
And if the government did this somewhat comprehensive
socialization of investment geared towards
creating maximum job opportunities, that would
be a better society, a different kind of capitalism.
But technically, he said, it could be done.
Moreover, the central Keynes point was that
actually this could be good for capitalists
as well, because even though workers would
have more bargaining power, you would also
have the economy expanding more rapidly, the
markets would be more buoyant, there'd be
more opportunity for new business investment,
just because workers would have money in their
pockets and they could buy things, just like
Henry Ford was famous in recognizing that
if you paid workers decent wages, well, then
workers might actually be able to afford to
buy Ford automobiles.
JAY: Right.
And this Keynesian idea's heavily influenced
this act that we talked about earlier, the
Humphrey Hawkins Act, 'cause if I understand
correctly, in that act it actually says if
the private sector can't create enough jobs
to get unemployment at 4 percent, then the
government should use public works to do it.
I mean, it was in the legislation; I don't
think it was ever really enacted, 'cause five
years later, unemployment's at almost 10 percent.
But the ideas were very influential.
POLLIN: Right.
So you have Marx and Keynes, and those are
also reflective of different notions about
how capitalist economy functions.
Keynes was much more in the social democratic
tradition, operating within the institutions
of capitalism.
Now, the third great thinker to mention was
a contemporary of Keynes named Michal Kalecki.
He was a Polish Socialist who was influenced
both by Keynes and Marks and had some ideas,
obviously, of his own.
And what Kalecki said was, okay, Keynes has
now shown us how we can utilize the technical
apparatus of economic policy to achieve full
employment under capitalism, but what Keynes
neglects is the change that it would create
in terms of political dynamics, that it would
give workers more bargaining power, and that
the capitalists don't want the workers to
have so much bargaining power.
It would squeeze profits.
Kalecki acknowledges all this.
And therefore, he says, though we have the
technical tools to achieve full employment
under capitalism, we don't have the political
force, and it would be a clear challenge to
the prerogatives of the rulers of the society,
the capitalists, to do this.
So he laid out the real tension there.
But within Kalecki there is still the point
that if you get a bigger market, then capitalists
can benefit from a more buoyant market, even
if the wages are higher and the capitalists'
share of the total market, the income coming
back to them, is lower because workers have
more bargaining power.
That's the tension.
And so the fourth major thinker, most influential
thinker, I would say, on the issue of employment
is the leading neoliberal economist, Milton
Friedman.
And Milton Friedman actually said that we
have a natural rate of unemployment under
capitalism which would be full employment--that
is, anybody who wants a job would get a job--if
we only didn't have government policies that
created barriers to workers and businesses
working things out on their own.
The example he cited--one of the big examples
cited by Friedman is minimum wage laws, because
he said--and unions.
Unions, minimum wage laws get in the middle
between the workers and the owners.
The workers and the owners keep bargaining
till they got a wage that everyone can agree
to, and then you would have full employment.
You just don't want to have these institutional
forces like minimum wage laws, like unions,
telling the bosses that they have to pay workers
more than the workers deserve.
So that kind of sets the whole scene of the
debate.
Unfortunately, the winner of the debate over
the last generation, not just in the U.S.,
throughout the world, was clearly Milton Friedman,
and so that what we have under neoliberalism
for essentially the last 40 years is an abandonment
of any attempt by government policy to sustain
full employment, to use government policy
to soak up people that are having a difficulty
getting jobs and creating job opportunities
for them.
JAY: You can almost say the objective of government
policy was the opposite, was to make sure
that unemployment never fell below a certain
level, because that would, they would say,
instigate inflation, their code word for higher
wages.
So if anything, government policy was the
opposite.
They wanted what--quote-unquote, this natural
level of unemployment.
POLLIN: Right.
Well, that's certainly--you know, Milton Friedman
was certainly the leading figure in advancing
this view in the economics profession, and
it spilled into policymaking.
And the view was, right, actually, the government
is incapable of achieving full employment
anywmay; in fact, government is a barrier
by, for example, setting up minimum wage laws;
but that the government can do one thing,
and that is to control the inflation rate,
and so that's what macroeconomic policy should
be focused on.
Now, it turns out the way you control the
inflation rate is by keeping the unemployment
rate higher, because, precisely, if the workers
get too much bargaining power, then that enables
them to push up their wages.
That then means that businesses will try to
pass on those wage increases in terms of price
increases to consumers.
And that's how you get inflation.
So you have this notion of the tradeoff between
inflation and unemployment.
JAY: But that tradeoff is, you know, if you
look at the period we're talking about, essentially
from 1960 forward, the big spikes in inflation
didn't have anything to do with high unemployment.
Like, the biggest periods of inflation were
actually periods of, also, high unemployment.
POLLIN: Right.
And that was--as we talked about in the last
segment, that was due to the oil price shock.
So the initial theory of the tradeoff between
inflation and unemployment completely ignored
the fact that there could be other majors
sources of inflation.
It was very convenient, by the way, because,
okay, you get an oil shock, inflation goes
up, you have a recession, and then the Friedmanites
of the economics profession say, a-ha, there
is no tradeoff; in fact, what we see is government
efforts to reduce unemployment are just making
inflation worse and aren't reducing unemployment
anyway; so let's abandon the whole thing;
the whole Keynesian thing was wrong.
And that's how we got the macroeconomics that
we have now, which brought us to the Great
Recession.
JAY: So in the next segment of our interview,
we're going to pursue this discussion.
So please join us for the next segment of
our series of interviews with Bob Pollin on
The Real News Network.
