Samizdata

Even in Britain, the headlines this morning are full of the imminent bankruptcy filing of GM. It is, as one report points out, the biggest bankruptcy in US industrial history, setting an unenviable record. Several things stand out as I looked through the details but one immediately grabbed my attention: the US taxpayer could be on the hook for up to $60 billion on account of state assistance. $60 billion. I guess we all get so punch-drunk with the vast sums involved in bank bailouts and the like that the significance of these sums becomes a little fuzzy (or maybe it was that white wine I had at the BBQ yesterday). $60 billion of money that is being spent to rescue part of a veteran auto firm will be money that will not be available to fund, say, a new set of business startups in the US. GM has highly recognisable brands and a lot of well organised workers. Pretty much everyone has heard of it, has heard of Detroit’s status as a car-making town. So, naturally, there is big media and political interest in what happens to GM. All those thousands of jobs on the line, etc. But the entrepreneurs, taxpayers and consumers who will see their wallets lifted, business plans stymied, or car purchases affected – who speaks for them? Taken as a whole, far more people will be affected by the cost of paying to sort out GM than the management and workers, but given the dynamics, it is usually far easier for politicians to portray themselves as “saving” a firm by spending or “investing” (sic) public money than it is to accept, however painfully, that a firm needs to be broken up and capital released for other, more productive things. (It needs to be remembered that GM’s problems pre-date the credit crunch).

The French classical liberal economist, Frederic Bastiat, wrote a famous essay, “What is seen and what is not seen”. He was attacking things like subsidies and tariffs. And not a word of his essay is out of date.

I suppose they deserve half a clap for trying, if not for the rigour of argumentation. Crooked Timber, a leftish blog I read occasionally, tries to deny that flexible, relatively lightly regulated labour markets have fared better, or are superior to, the more heavily regulated, European ones, such as in France and Germany. Oh really? Let me quote a couple of lines:

“According to the latest Eurostat data, the unemployment rate in the US was equal to that in the EU-15 in March, and is now likely to be higher. Writing in the NY Times, Floyd Norris refers to the conventional wisdom that flexibility inherent in the American system — it is easier to both hire and fire workers than in many European countries implies that unemployment should be lower (at any given point in the business cycle) in the US than in Europe.”

It is “conventional wisdom” in the sense that it makes sense. Other things being equal – which they never are, of course – if you increase the cost, and hassle, of both hiring someone, and make it more expensive and difficult to fire someone if they fail to come up to scratch for any reason, then fewer people in general get hired. And it strikes me that that holds pretty robustly. Yes, unemployment may currently be as bad, percentage-wise, across the US as a whole as across the whole of the euro zone, although let it be noted that different parts of the US have differing rates of unemployment, as does the euro zone. But as the next paragraph demonstrates, it really will not do to try and claim that heaping labour markets with more costs and rules has few adverse effects:

Advocates of the US system make much of the deterrent to hiring associated with employment protection laws, but they ignore the other side of the coin. When the economy is contract, employment protection laws do in fact protect employment (if they did not, they would have no adverse effect on hiring either). On this basis there is nothing surprising in what we are seeing. EU unemployment rates should be higher in expansions and lower in contractions, which is exactly what is required for lower variance.

But – and it is a big but – if monetary policy is not run by idiots, thereby avoiding boom-bust cycles of great severity, then overall, the low-regulation labour market fares better, in the medium to long-run, than the alternative. If wage rates are allowed to fall in a recession, rather than be held up via artificial means, then yes, you will get, as America did in the early 1920s for example, a sharp, but short contraction, followed by a rapid recovery. But if you load lots of rules and regulations on, you get a 1930s-style decade of high, double-digit unemployment. And in measuring the impact of labour market laws, the duration of a period of high unemployment is as bad as, if not worse, than a period of high, but short-lived, unemployment.

And let’s not forget that in France, for instance, the country had high unemployment rates for much of the 1990s and early ‘Noughties, when much of the Western economy was booming on the back of cheap commodities, the rise of the BRICs, the dotcom boom, the Cold War “dividend”, and impact of partial free market advances in the US, the UK and some other countries. And yet hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Frenchmen and women, let it not be forgotten, languished on the dole or make-work projects. In 2005, for example, French unemployment was above 10 per cent.

Here is quite a balanced account of the benefits of a supposedly flexible labour market, including the pros and cons. This extensive study comes down pretty firmly on the side of the view that flexible labour markets are good overall.

In a way, what this comes down to is the trade-off between security for those who have a job already versus the freedoms of those who want to get another one or any job at all. To pretend that things such as regulations and costs of firing people will not influence behaviour is to deny that incentives matter, or that they affect welfare.