Until very recently, one of the biggest challenges facing mankind was making sure there was enough to eat. From the dawn of agriculture until well into the Industrial Age, the common human condition was what nutritionists and public-health experts would describe as severe and damaging nutritional biomedical stress.
About 250 years ago, Georgian England was the richest society that had ever existed and yet food shortages still afflicted large segments of the population. Adolescents sent to sea by the Marine Society to be officer’s servants were 15cm shorter than the sons of the gentry. A century of economic growth later, the working class in the US was still spending US$0.4 of every extra dollar earned on more calories.
Today, food scarcity is no longer a problem, at least in high-income countries. In the US, about 1 percent of the labor force is able to grow enough food to supply the entire population with sufficient calories and essential nutrients, which are transported and distributed by another 1 percent of the labor force. That does not account for the entire food industry, of course.
However, most of what is being done by the remaining 14 percent of the labor force dedicated to delivering food to our mouths involves making what we eat tastier or more convenient — jobs that are more about entertainment or art than about necessity.
The challenges we face are now those of abundance. Indeed, when it comes to workers dedicated to our diets, we can add some of the 4 percent of the labor force who, working as nurses, pharmacists and educators, help us solve problems resulting from having consumed too many calories or the wrong kinds of nutrients.
More than 20 years ago, then-US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan started pointing out that GDP growth in the US was becoming less driven by consumers trying to acquire more stuff. Those in the prosperous middle class were becoming much more interested in communicating, seeking out information and trying to acquire the right stuff to allow them to live their lives as they wished.
Of course, the rest of the world still faces problems of scarcity; about one-third of the world’s population struggles to get enough food. And there is no guarantee that those problems will solve themselves. It is worth recalling that a little more than 150 years ago, both Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill believed that India and Britain would converge economically in no more than three generations.
There is no shortage of problems to worry about: the destructive power of our nuclear weapons, the pig-headed nature of our politics, the potentially enormous social disruptions that would be caused by climate change.
However, the No. 1 priority for economists — indeed, for humankind — is finding ways to spur equitable economic growth.
Job No. 2 — developing economic theories to guide societies in an age of abundance — is no less complicated. Some of the problems that are likely to emerge are already becoming obvious. Today, many people derive their self-esteem from their jobs. As labor becomes a less important part of the economy and working-age men, in particular, become a smaller proportion of the workforce, problems related to social inclusion are bound to become both more chronic and more acute.
Such a trend could have consequences extending far beyond the personal or the emotional, creating a population that is, to borrow a phrase from the Nobel-laureate economists George Akerlof and Robert Shiller, easily “phished for phools.” In other words, they would be targeted by those who do not have their wellbeing as their primary goal — scammers like Bernie Madoff, corporate interests like McDonalds or tobacco companies, the guru of the month or cash-strapped governments running exploitative lotteries.
Problems like these would require a very different type of economics from the one championed by Adam Smith. Instead of working to protect natural liberty where possible and building institutions to approximate its effects elsewhere, the central challenge would be to help people protect themselves from manipulation.
To be sure, it is not clear that economists will have a comparative advantage in addressing these problems. However, for now at least, behavioral economists like Akerlof, Shiller, Richard Thaler, and Matthew Rabin seem to be leading the field.
In any case, one need only glance at the headlines to comprehend that the issue has become a defining feature of our economic epoch.
J. Bradford DeLong is a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was deputy assistant US Treasury secretary during former US president Bill Clinton’s administration.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers