Comments 28

丰裕年代的经济学

Jan 28, 2016 J. Bradford DeLong

伯克利—直到最近，人类所面临的最大挑战之一是确保有足够多的吃的。从农业雏形齐到工业时代，普通人的条件都处于营养学家和公共卫生专家认为严重和有害的营养生物医学压力状态。

大约在250年前，乔治英格兰是有史以来最富裕的社会，但食品短缺仍然困扰着很大一部分人口。被皇家海洋协会（Marine Society）派去船上为官员服务的青少年要比上流人士的孩子矮15厘米。在经历了一百年的经济增长后，美国工作阶级仍要把40%的收入用于增加卡路里。

如今，食品短缺已不再是个问题，至少在高收入国家是如此。在美国，大约1%的劳动力就能生产足够多的食品为全国人口提供足够的卡路里和必要营养素，而运输和分销这些食品则需要另外1%的劳动力即可。当然，这并不是食品行业的全部。但其余致力于将食品送到我们口中的14%的劳动力的工作是让我们吃得更美味或更方便——这与其说是必需品，不如说是娱乐或艺术。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Nov 14, 2018 Ricardo Hausmann
Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Nov 12, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs
Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Nov 13, 2018 Jan-Werner Mueller
Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

Nov 12, 2018 Peter Singer
A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Nov 12, 2018 Brahma Chellaney

J. Bradford DeLong

Writing for PS since 2002
200 Commentaries

J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was Deputy Assistant US Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, where he was heavily involved in budget and trade negotiations. His role in designing the bailout of Mexico during the 1994 peso crisis placed him at the forefront of Latin America’s transformation into a region of open economies, and cemented his stature as a leading voice in economic-policy debates.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 33 in all 33 Comments on this article

Fernando Centeno Aug 1, 2016

To economists & their adherents in the policy world, it's all been about "economic growth", even today. Economists are over-rated & do not have the record to justify their dominance in the public policy field. They have their place, but I'd rather listen to other professionals who know what they are talking about.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Víctor Sánchez Feb 19, 2016

You are right Mr. DeLong, we live in a world of Abundance and Scarcity it is true. As you said there are a lot of problems to worry about: the nuclear weapons, the absurd politics and social disruptions, etc.
As a matter of fact, the priority of economists is really to find ways to stimulate equitable economic growth for the humankind. But it is not happening, how can it be possible? Simple, the core of neoclassical economic theory is based on the belief that the market ensures that everything is “just right” and that every experienced economist knows is not true.
In addition, if some economists are trying to develop economic theories to guide societies in this current difficult times they need accurate information from government agencies, companies, taxpayers, international institutions, etc. for the formulation of macro econometric models or theories. So, if the data is false or manipulated, how economic researchers can deliver appropriate scientific results? What about the information asymmetry in research? How the economic “dogma”is destroying the western world? Do you really believe that economic aggregates are accurate to develop an economic theory? Did not you think about it? ...!!!Dogma, dogma and dogma!!!!
Remember what the Nobel prize- winning economist Shiller said about the other Novel prize winning economist Fama: “His research shows that markets are not efficient. It must make him feel like a priest who has discovered God does not exist”
It is time to be serious before the following economic collapse that will be happening.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
D. V. Gendre Feb 16, 2016

Another article that shows in what bad shape economics is. Same problems, same discussions as 100 years ago. Before the Great Depression most economists thought that they were experiencing a new age of abundance. As we all know, it had quite a different outcome as those economists claimed. There is NO SUCH THING AS AN AGE OF ABUNDANCE! I would call it the AGE OF ABUNDANCE IN STUPIDITY.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John A Werneken Jan 31, 2016

Protection from manipulation? What???

What's wrong with 'survival of the fittest?' It does take a very smart person at all to see manipulation coming from miles away...
- Jose araujo Feb 1, 2016
  
  The problem is that not all that survive are the fittest, and start to think that because they have survived they are different and entitled to something more then the others...
  
  Its called the rent problem in economics, first they thought they were entitled to a rent because it was god desire, and then because it was the invisible hand that determined that.
  
  Wealth is a social construct, not given by god or a natural right. So we has a society must determine if we are ok to give to the 62 families capture 50% of the worlds wealth....
  
  I myself think its to much. I don't propose the communist way, but think its evident that there is a large room for improvement.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dimitrios Rizos Jan 31, 2016

Social integration is vital. Evidence is shown in Case and Deaton's paper in regards to the the rise in mortality rates in middle aged whites. Though it is challenging to pinpoint cause-and-effect of why this happening, the article brings up the fact that "problems" socially will affect the labor force in the new-age abundant economy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
de Lafayette Jan 31, 2016

{JBD: The challenges we face are now those of abundance}

Indeed. And that challenge is summed-up in one info-grahic, from the OECD titled "Life expectancy and total HealthCare spending (OECD countries)": https://www.flickr.com/photos/68758107@N00/14464162998/

The US is spending twice as much on health-care services for a life-span three years less than the European Union. Part of that difference in life-span must be due to a large increase in obesity in the US.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Per Kurowski Jan 31, 2016

Yes besides jobs, we are also beginning to have the need of worthy and decent unemployments.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2012/04/we-need-worthy-and-decent-unemployments.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Odyssios Redux Jan 31, 2016

'Today, food scarcity is no longer a problem, at least in high-income countries.'

I wish that were true. I agree that the problems of producing and distributing food on a global scale have (pro tempore) been solved. But the enormous and increasing reliance in the US and UK (with which I'm most familiar) on food banks and similar support organizations indicate a growing social layer of the marginally, or downright mal-, nourished. This amid abundance that is indeed dazzling.

Since the general outline of an economics that can at least address this has been understood for close to a century (Keynesian in intent and direction), clearly the difficulties are more political than anything else. Policies dictated by even the mildest Keynesian approach are political anathema in both Washington and Westminster. I'm going to treat wealth as any other good: we've solved to a great extent the problem of its production. It's the distribution that's failed. With no end in sight. A rational taxation policy, which inconveniences few but helps many, seems to escape enactment - or even discussion. Look at tax rates in, say, the mid 1960s, at the upper end of the income and wealth scale. Yet those years were (rightly) seen as prosperous and comfortable for a far wider swath of society than now. If today's rates were even approximately at those levels, a very great deal could be done to assuage poverty, hunger, and the decay of infrastructure.

We don't need a new economics. Nor 'behavioral economists' to tell us that the notion of 'the rational consumer' is as quaint as the that of Santa Claus. One's own behavior is a dead giveaway, and I don't mean the hopeless spendthrift!

No, it's not a new economics that we need, but a new (or maybe renewed) politics. Which has degenerated from 'the art of the possible' to the 'cruelty of the 'nyet!'.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jan 31, 2016

Food abundance has been created by 1 % producing enough for the remaining 99 %, with another 1 % involved in distribution.
14 % are involved in cosmetic overlays - bringing the total to 16 %.
Perhaps the story behind every sector.
Demand being met requiring just 1 % as producers.
Fascinating insights from the author …
India is an example where ensuring jobs for many more than are actually needed.
Because unemployment levels need to be at the lowest …to prevent social explosions.

Prevention of manipulation perhaps not so unimportant after all…keeping everyone busy equally important.

Productivity enhancements and technology progress are great..
The author perhaps is asking a question - whose answers need introspection.
Not just from Economists.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Jan 31, 2016

Why does anyone still listen to economists? (Dirk Quellette, on Anatole Kaletsky/The Three Fears Sinking Global Markets/pro-synd.)
Are economists asking right questions? Right in the sense that they are answerable questions. Scientists of the 17th (or the 18th?) century asked what was lost in the chemical process of combustion. They began in the next century to ask what was the chemical process of combustion, and they got themselves nearer to an answer because nothing is lost in combustion. And when economits are asking right questions, can they always give answers? For instance, I was puzzled when I as a junior high school pupil met an arimathic question of 5-8=?. I was againg confounded when a senior high school student with the question of what was the value of Y when Y×Y=-4.
Prof. DeLong is taking us to a new philosophycal field where we might be asking a new question and find a solution.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Aale Hanse Jan 30, 2016

All well and good but what about the people’s health so they can partake in all the grandeur... Inner health is being impacted from all quarters, psychologically and mentally we are stretched to accommodate the fallout of others, food that look less like food after being condensed and laced with poisons, the increased reliance on doctors and pharmaceutical companies wanting to experiment and of course there is the disease factor that is ever increasing around us. With the estimated population growth and the ease at which people can wander around the world, the public health is going to take a battering, especial from the disease angle and if not sensibly addressed we may end up extinct, mind you that sounds environmentally advantageous. With all this economic chatter based on old ideas still being pushed as a flawless mantra it would seem that many are thinking they are immune from any fallout...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Denis Drew Jan 29, 2016

Ask Jimmy Hoffa. Ask IG Meall what institution is likely to provide the votes and the knowledge to get the greatest good for the greatest number.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jan 29, 2016

IMHO, the problem is that the economic models that used have a paradox in themselves.

They believe value is only created in the supply, or production of goods, but they also believe that this vale should be captured by the ones who produce-hence the communist paradox, because if the ones who are producing the goods, are the ones getting the money, how to you increase production....

Well, the answer is that the only valuable activity is the production of goods for the rich, not for the consumers...

So to grow we can only produce planes, diamonds, 5*hotels, yates, etc because those are the only goods that are consumed by the rich..

If you start producing for the masses, the tell you that you are going to increase debt, because that is the only way you can afford it, since they are not paying you the money to buy the goods they produce, and that debt is bad and produces recessions....

Strange, how Marx appears to be right, f you strip all the weird words from the arguments... Well not that strange if you think that Marx work was also a reaction the Ricardian view of the world, which considered wages should be set at the subsistence level... you know the masses would fornicate and create more children that would lead them to poverty again. The new version is that you are going to bust your credit card limit buying cars and vacation in the Caribbean....

Well, some things never change. Long live Malthus ans its correct predictions.... wait i don't think they were correct...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dan baur Jan 29, 2016

"developing economic theories to guide societies" - don't flatter yourself too much - the world may be better off with less guidance from economists. A Free Market self organizes better than you can even understand, let alone "guide".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
robert aylward Jan 29, 2016

The enormous increase in the world's productive capacity is too often over-looked. Indeed, the world now has the productive capacity to provide a decent standard of living for every human being. How to make use of that productive capacity is the challenge.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
prashanth kamath Jan 29, 2016

Some 250 years ago, Georgian England was the richest society that had ever existed,
Read more at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/economic-problems-age-of-abundance-by-j--bradford-delong-2016-01#gRoEjBI9CA222rhe.99

No, I think may be it was Holland that was the richest society then. Adam Smith says so. For an academic economist to write so is a bit shabby. Holland or Nederland had a per capita income twice that of England. Adam Smith made repetitive comparisons of China, Netherland and England; chapter after chapter.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Howson Jan 29, 2016

As an extension to Paul's post. I would love someone to calculate the rate at which we can sustainably use earth's resources, the maximum level of pollution ( including CO2 and methane ) we can use with out damaging the environment. Next step divide these figures by the world population
Take those figures and work out each person's ethical level of maximum economic consumption. I suspect economic growth would immediately be thing of the past. It will never happen but it would be interesting to see what standard of living we are morally entitled to.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Freddy Terranean Jan 29, 2016

BdL: "...too many calories..."
But see http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/what-does-a-calorie-measure/427089/"
Rethinking the calorie.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Jan 29, 2016

Brad hits the nail, but I would go one step further.

It is not a great discovery that abundance is created by so many developments, but that it is enjoyed by so few makes a stunning case. That wealth could be concentrated so much that 1% in India would have what 56% of the population could have enjoyed, is not a matter of accident (even a better comparison was made in Davos about 63 people enjoying world's 50% wealth). Allowances for such a perverse distribution is the making of those processes, that today gets not even a cursory treatment by policy makers and economists.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Wake Jan 28, 2016

As a former agricultural economist, I'm totally on board with the need for using more behavorial economics but I'm not seeing an more people Phishing for Phools as a justification. It seems more corruption is more a constraint to economic growth than a product.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Jan 28, 2016

Hi Bradford,

Your essay is about balance, how to achieve economic balance, and it gets us thinking about the kinds of policies we'll need to prevent economic predators from stealing wealth from the naive -- which is merely a symptom of a deeper problem.

I see 'the problem' as a lack of political and economic vision.

Thus far, our political and economic model has evolved. It wasn't designed, it evolved. Big difference.

(It might be the best Model T Ford ever built in history, but it's still a Model T, if you catch my meaning)

It's exactly the conversation that we need to have.

Here in North America as you've said, 1% of the workers (and presumably 1% of the total available investment pool) produce enough food to feed everyone on the continent.

And yet, we see a major distribution problem in North America -- let alone the rest of the world.

With regards to agricultural output and distribution, our North American model is the best yet, but it is far from perfect. That is my point.

Instead of waging trillion dollar wars, we should have continued our work to better improve our model, and especially in regards to the food distribution aspect.

I don't think that we should be giving food away for free (except in emergency situations) but there are far too many Food Banks in operation for such an affluent society, and there is constant demand for more of them.

Q: And why do we have this particular symptom that I choose to single-out of many symptoms?

A: There are far too many idle hands, because all of their jobs picked up and went to Asia -- a process that began in 1973.

We could end a number of social ills simultaneously by simply arriving at the correct equation.

1) By legislating mandatory job-sharing, every healthy person of working age in North America would be entitled to a job for a minimum of 6 months of the year.

That means everyone (except for people that can't work for health reasons, students, homemakers, retired people, or the very wealthy) has a job for a minimum of 6 months of the year, and is then eligible to receive short term unemployment insurance benefits during their (short) unemployed time away from work -- ***instead of welfare***.

With mandatory job sharing, there will be no need for welfare. At all.

With mandatory job sharing, there will be a yearly unemployment rate of 0% -- that is, over the course of the year, every worker will have worked a minimum of 6 months -- however, at any given point, the actual unemployment rate will be 2.5%-3.0%.

With a job (and full unemployment benefits during the short periods of unemployment) long term unemployment will become a thing of the past.

We know that long term unemployed individuals eventually turn to welfare in order to be able to eat, have shelter, etc. once unemployment insurance payments run out.

We also know that long term unemployment turns into substance abuse, crime, homelessness, more crime = bigger policing budgets = bigger insurance claims/higher insurance rates = more citizens injured or terrorized by crime, etc... all that is just the beginnings of the problems caused by high and long term unemployment, welfare, and changes in the thinking of individuals in such circumstances (long term depression, withdrawing from society, anger, resentment, etc)

By not keeping our people fully employed (or on very short term unemployment insurance, while waiting to get back to work) we bring on an OCEAN of troubles on ourselves.

Job Sharing is the answer.

By legislating that every able worker in North America can have a job for a minimum of 6 months per year, we could solve the worst of inequality, poverty, social ills, and dramatically and positively lower crime rates, insurance rates, policing and court costs, and enjoy a safer, more egalitarian society.

It's so simple.

Thank you again, Bradford, for publicly posting your thoughts at ProSyn.

http://johnbrianshannon.com/2015/06/24/in-sweden-nobody-sleeps-in-dumpsters/

As always, very best regards, JBS
- John Brian Shannon Jan 29, 2016
  
  I've expanded on my original comment and posted it here, if you'd like to read it: http://johnbrianshannon.com/2016/01/28/silver-bullet-u-s-economy/
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Friesen Jan 28, 2016

I think it is time to start thinking about how much "productivity" the planet can take. We need to think about the possibility of infinite productivity too - the case where no human work is required to produce the things we need, because any task that is required can be done by artificial intelligence. I don't know how far away that day is, but I am sure it will come.
One thing is clear to me. As productivity rises, the justification for inequality falls. A low productivity society needs inequality to create the incentive to work. But we are now producing more than we need, and more than is good for the planet. The rational response would be to reduce inequality, reducing the incentive to work, reducing our environmental impact and reducing poverty at the same time.
- michael CROCKETT Jan 28, 2016
  
  Hi Paul,
  
  I think that you are right. We in the West have grown accustomed to having too much of everything, a fantastically high standard of living for most people, and over consumption in every direction. And philosophically we also feel that the work ethic is good and desirable, and in a way we accept the absurd level of inequality in our own societies because even those far from the magic 1% are living very very well.
  
  This is a far cry from just having enough to avoid starvation, but I have noticed in a long life that people are extremely reluctant to reduce their own living standards to help others. Perhaps this will result in the extermination of the human species in the next few hundred thousand years.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Jan 28, 2016

The fundamental concepts of conventional economics, like a set of printed refrigerator magnet 'words', will be rearranged and remain 'true' and serviceable both because many are tautologies and because they provide some abstract quantification to a world that is likely to remain measurable. "Supply v. Demand" - how could society function without such deep stuff? Brad and his pals are always demanding more 'Demand', motivating more 'Supply' and hence jobs to ignite ever more 'Demand'. All in the service of 'Growth', to escape the living hell of Secular Stagnation. (The dirty secret is that much of such 'Growth' has been on the back of unsustainable government 'Debt', the equivalent of a contradiction, AKA a 'Ponzi Scheme'. So much for "spur(ring) equitable economic growth" and "phool(ing)" a population dazzled by the stuffed fridges and shiny toys produced by assorted engineers for which economists can take v. little credit and much of the blame for the unpayable bills.) Brad's "job number two– developing economic theories to guide societies in an age of abundance" was done for him by, iconically, Marx and others who had the decent intuition to recognize that abundance properly administered affords the most generalized forms of material and social freedom, not only form want, but also from a system motivated by obsolete values for which economics has all sorts of hallowed concepts, such as limitless 'Growth'. Recourse to 'behavioural economics' illustrates this transition beautifully.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Bull Jan 28, 2016

"...The challenges we face are now those of abundance..."
Infinite growth on a finite planet...what could possibly go wrong?
http://olduvai.ca
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack Schmidt Jan 28, 2016

Economics is, traditionally, the study of the distribution of scarce resources. Prof. DeLong says that, now that resources are no longer scarce, economists should move on to shepherding us lambs and protecting us from wolves. That's not economics. I suggest, rather, that economists find themselves other scarce resources as in Michael Public's comment below: living space, clean air and water, mental space for sustained thinking, etc.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
michael CROCKETT Jan 28, 2016

Today, food scarcity is no longer a problem, at least in high-income countries.
So, 1 billion out of 7 billion have enough to eat and we should all lie back and enjoy ourselves!!!
- Zsolt Hermann Jan 28, 2016
  
  I agree with both of you and Paul Friesen.
  And it is not only the poor distribution and great inequality that is the problem.
  Our whole economic paradigm is wrong as it is based on artificially inflated aggregate demand to drive an illusory constant quantitative growth system leading to ever increasing profit.
  
  We are still stubbornly maintaining that human beings are outside of the natural system and thus natural laws like balance, homeostasis, living by natural necessities and available resources do not apply to us.
  This is a great mistake for which we are already paying the price and the situation is steadily getting worse.
  
  Many people already predict that very soon wars will break out for available clear drinking water while the rubbish we amassed for example in the oceans can destroy our fish supply, not to mention other crucial species exterminated by us.
  
  We are facing fundamental crossroads, questions not simple economic or political adjustments.
  Whether we want or not we will have to re-adapt to the natural system we evolved from simply for survival.
  And such adaptation will requite an "adjustment", "upgrade" to our inherently self-serving, self-justifying and greedy human nature.
  And such upgrade, with positive motivation can only succeed through a brand new "global, integral" education program.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Paul Friesen Jan 28, 2016
  
  The problem is poor distribution, caused by greed. We easily have the resources to give everyone on the planet a decent life.
  But your figures are, I think, a bit pessimistic. There has actually been a lot of progress in the last couple of decades, and the fraction of humanity that has enough to eat is much higher than you suggest.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Avraam Dectis Jan 28, 2016

.
Brilliant insightful article.

I think the form of abundance economics suggests itself.

When a few can provide most anything and robots do the routine work, the rest will have to be supported through artificial demand.

We could sketch out how such a system would work, but the true challenge would be to get political cooperation and also have to solve how the new system interfaces with other national systems.

The insulation from manipulation is much harder. The media, corrupted by low brow internet competition, no longer acts as a filter but as a transmission device for blatant manipulation. There are solutions but the USA, with its creation myth involving freedom and free speech, will have a difficult time addressing the issue.
.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jan 28, 2016

Yes. Food is now cheap relative to salaries. But what about clean air? How much do I have to pay to not have lead and mercury in my air? What about living space? A small apartment in London, Tokyo or SF costs so much that husband and wife must both work while the baby is raised by strangers. What about a healthy mind? How much must I pay not to have advertising and cartoons invade my daughter's play space? In some ways basic and required things are unaffordable compared to Georgian England. I am not suggesting we go backwards - only that measuring things in terms of lucre, as economists are want to do, reveals only a small piece of the big picture.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.