Bryan Caplan is right - free market economists should worry deeply about unemployment
Bryan Caplan has a very good blog post over at Econlog on "The Grave Evil of Unemployment" and on why free market economists should be deeply concerned about unemployment. I strongly agree with Bryan on this topic (and most other topics) - free market economists are often far too nonchalant about unemployment. This is Bryan:
I know hundreds of free-market economists. They're friends of mine. Indeed, I'm a free-market economist myself. It saddens me to say, then, that our critics are often right. While some free-market economists merely doubt the efficacy of policies intended to alleviate unemployment, the average free-market economist doesn't take the unemployment problem seriously. Why not? At the level of high theory, free-market economists love market-clearing models. If there's surplus wheat, the price of wheat will fall to clear the market. If there's surplus labor, similarly, the wage will fall to eliminate unemployment. What about nominal wage rigidity? Most free-market economists concede that nominal wage rigidity exists to some degree, but think the problem is mild and short-lived: "It's been three years. The labor market must have fully adjusted by now." High theory aside, though, free-market economists have a toolbox of quips they use to belittle the problem of unemployment. There's the argument from the safety net: "Why would anyone want to go back to work when he can collect 99 weeks of unemployment insurance?" There's the argument from relocation: "There are plenty of jobs in North Dakota. Anyone who refuses to move there is therefore voluntarily unemployed." There's the argument from worker hubris: "If he's an 'unemployed carpenter,' then I'm an 'unemployed astronaut.'" There's the argument from Zero Marginal Product: "If the guy can't find a job, his labor must be worthless."I am afraid Bryan is right - most free market economists tend to belittle the problem of unemployment. That is too bad as unemployment is a massive economic and social problem both in the US and particularly in Europe. In fact it is likely the most important economic problem of the day. No matter the causes unemployment is a grave evil and free market economists should be deeply concerned about the rise in unemployment over the past five years. Among the reasons why many free market economists seem careless about unemployment is that many of them tend to think of unemployment as a necessary evil - this especially seem to be the case for some Austrian school economists. Hence, they tend to think that rising unemployment is a natural consequence of reallocation of economic resources after an unsustainable boom has come to an end. That might very well sometimes be the case, but that does not make unemployment less of a problem. I would further add that free market economists tend to think of unemployment as a result of "government failure" - too high taxation, overly generous welfare benefits, minimum wages, rigid firing and hiring rules etc. I agree that unemployment both in the US and Europe is higher because of such failed regulation. However, the present unemployment problem in both the US and Europe is not a supply side problem, but rather a demand side problem and it is clear that many free market economists have a hard time dealing with demand side problems as they tend to think that if we have a demand side problem then it is a justification of Keynesian demand management policies (fiscal policy). Obviously Market Monetarists like myself would - in line with Keynesian economists - argue that the rise in unemployment over the past five years primarily is a result of a collapse in aggregate demand. This drop has, however, not been caused by an inherent instability of free markets, but is a result of "government failure" or more precisely is a result of monetary policy failure. Market Monetarists argue that we can avoid monetary policy failure if central banks adopt an NGDP level target and that would also minimize involuntary (demand side) unemployment (that is an positive side-effect rather than the main purpose however). There is nothing "Keynesian" about this, but it acknowledges the fact that failed monetary policy can lead to involuntary unemployment. Bryan's solution to the unemployment problem is the following:
"Instead of downplaying the grave evil of unemployment, we free-market economists should urge governments to redouble their efforts to fight it. How can we do so and remain free-market economists? First and foremost, by emphasizing the obvious: Every government imposes a vast array of employment-destroying regulations. Minimum wages. Licensing laws. Pro-union laws. Mandated benefits - especially mandated health insurance. Anyone who appreciates the grave evil of unemployment should bitterly oppose these regulations - and vigorously reject the cavalier, callous view that a heavy-duty safety net is a good substitute for a job. Government regulation is hardly the sole cause of nominal wage rigidity, but it definitely makes a bad situation worse."I wholeheartedly agree with Bryan on this. So while I believe that most of the rise in unemployment in particularly Europe has been caused by a collapse in aggregate demand I also think that countries like Spain have massive structural problems that causes unemployment - particularly youth unemployment - to be much higher than it should be. However, Bryan also acknowledges the demand side problem:
Isn't monetary policy is a far more effective and sustainable way to boost Aggregate Demand? Sure. Given the existence of a central bank, though, it's hard to see why free-market economists should run away from this conclusion. How is Nominal GDP targeting any less free-market than constant growth in M2, or a frozen monetary base, or short-run interest-rate targeting? I think this is the closest Bryan has ever come to endorse NGDP targeting and I like the way he do it: Given the existence of a central bank (Free Banking would be preferable) then NGDP targeting is no less of a free-market alternative than constant money supply growth or a frozen monetary base.I certainly agreee or rather I think that NGDP targeting is the true free market alternative and is significantly more free market than other central bank based "solutions". I have explained this position in a number of blog posts. See for example here and here. Finally Bryan touches on what I would consider a very Friedmanite argument for NGDP targeting:
If, as seems highly likely, Scott Sumner is right to blame the Great Recession on central banks' tight monetary policies, free-market economists should not be afraid to honor him. Imagine how much statist legislation could have been averted if the world's central banks had kept NGDP on a steady course from 2008 to the present.This I think is an extremely strong argument for NGDP targeting. As a consequence of overly tight monetary policies in Europe and the US unemployment has spiked and economic activity has slumped - and caused serious financial distress. These evils are now being blamed by policy makers across the world as being a result of the failure of free markets. Nothing could of course be further from truth, but that does not change the fact that interventionists policies are now been introduced in both the US and in Europe to curb the "excesses of free markets". I doubt for example that US minimum wages would have been increased to the extent we have seen had we the rise in unemployment been curbed by an NGDP targeting policy and fiscal policy would certainly not have been eased to the extent we have seen. Not to talk about that draconian financial market regulation being passed these days. NGDP targeting seriously reduces the problem of involuntary unemployment and as such a consequence undermines the case interventionist policy. Therefore, any free market economist who are concerned about the economic and social implications of high and rising unemployment should of course endorse NGDP level targeting. I think Bryan just did even though he is reluctant to admit it.