I would like to draw the readers’ attention to an item I posted yesterday and say a few words about the significance of the discovery mentioned in it. The mock “theory of the Lump of Labour” was invented in 1891 by David Frederick Schloss in an article titled “Why Working-Men Dislike Piece Work.” The Oxford Dictionary cite Henry Mayhew’s London Labour and the London Poor (1851) as an early published instance of “lump labour,” referring to a form of labor subcontracting that was common on the docks and persisted in the building trades.

John Mills’s 1843 novel, The Stage Coach, or the Road of Life predates Mayhew by more than half a decade, it employs the exact phrase, “lump o’ labour” rather than a close approximation and, most importantly, it provides a substantial context that illustrates what the characters meant by the phrase. From that context, it is clear that the lump of labor refers to a given expenditure of effort and is related to the expectation of a proportionate reward for that effort. Jack Hogg’s father ruminates, “we ought to be well satisfied when we get moderate profits to a lump o’ labour or pain.”

Evidence that the phrase is consistent with working-class London patois from the period is found in the expression “lump o’ lead,” which is Cockney rhyming slang for head. The Lump or “lump hotel” is a slang term for the workhouse. Mills’s lump o’ labour thus had a concrete reference and is not an abstraction contemplating change — or lack of it — in the macro-economy. The theory of the lump of labor is strictly Schloss’s fiction. More precisely, the kind of fiction Schloss engaged in was caricature, based on social class, that presumed the superiority of the classes from which the readers of The Economic Review were drawn. Such derisive caricature — frequently based on ethnic, racial and gender stereotyping — was rampant in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Schloss’s caricature of “theory” was relatively mild — condescending rather than overtly hostile and defamatory. But that should not obscure the fact that it patently wasn’t an attempt to explain or understand what workers thought. Rather it was a routine maneuver in the construction of otherness — so standard as to be a cliche. Schloss’s “certain fixed amount of work to be done” hearkened back more than a century to Dorning Rasbotham’s “certain quantity of labour to be performed” by way of half a dozen or so intervening slight paraphrases and reiterations.

It is almost as if the Schloss/Rasbotham fixation on fixedness is trying to tell us something about their own discourse. In “The Other Question,” Homi Bhabha described the “dependence on the concept of ‘fixity’ in the ideological construction of otherness” in colonial discourse:

Fixity, as the sign of cultural/historical/racial difference in the discourse of colonialism, is a paradoxical mode of representation: it connotes rigidity and an unchanging order as well as disorder, degeneracy and daemonic repetition. Likewise the stereotype, which is its major discursive strategy, is a form of knowledge and identification that vacillates between what is always ‘in place’, already known, and something that must be anxiously repeated… as if the essential duplicity of the Asiatic or the bestial sexual license of the African that needs no proof, can never really, in discourse, be proved.

To state it plainly, the lump-of-labor fallacy myth is colonial discourse in which the worker is the colonized other — the “idiot Luddites” Larry Summers was taught as an undergraduate at M.I,T, to dismiss as “a bunch of goofballs.” That was way back in the 1970s. Just the other day, in a point/counterpoint with Dean Baker (Point: Shorter Workweeks Will Defeat the Robots), Omar al-Ubaydli (Counterpoint: Shorter Workweeks Will Increase Unemployment) trotted out the old formula:

A glaring red flag is how simple the proposed solution seems to be: Proponents of work-sharing believe an economy requires a fixed amount of work to be performed by a limited number of people.

That tired old colonial discourse. Shame.

Comments (0) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

Here’s a video from the Clinton campaign full of Republicans criticizing Trump for his attacks on the judge in his fraud case.

– Greg Sargent, Washington Post, this evening

Why, of course it’s a good idea, in a campaign that should be based largely on the likelihood that if elected, Trump would serve as Paul Ryan’s and the Koch brothers’ puppet, to undermine that argument.

Sure, Ryan said last week that Trump has assured him that he would sign a Ryan- drafted budget bill.  Sure, Trump has announced that he will return the federal bench to the Federalist Society.  (Okay, he doesn’t know what the Federalist Society is, so he doesn’t know that that’s what he said.  But Clinton knows.  I think.)

And sure, it would be really nice if, say, Russ Feingold defeated Ron Johnson in the Wisconsin Senate race.  But, hey, first things first.

And the first thing is to make sure that the five people who follow politics and don’t yet know what Trump said about that judge, and why, and that Republican pols are running far away from it, don’t enter that voting booth in November not knowing that the Republicans have distanced themselves from Trump’ statements about that judge.

They may enter the voting booth in November not knowing the specifics of what Trump and his mock University actually did, though, because far be it from the Clinton campaign to do a video showing quotes of the startlingly awful things Trump was having his employees do to people who were struggling financially.

Uh-uh.  That has nothing at all to do with ethnicity, race, gender or religion, so it’s not worth putting together a video about it.

Only things that undermine rather than make clear what should be one of your key fiscal policy arguments are worth putting together a video about.  Especially if you don’t think fiscal-policy arguments matter to voters, except the fiscal issues that are about one or another women’s issue.  As Clinton clearly doesn’t.

This is a campaign run entirely on algorithms put into a computer.  The algorithms are 1990s-vintage, though, and, well, you know.  Garbage in, garbage out.

This is a really awful campaign.  Clinton will win anyway.  But so will all those Republicans who said they don’t like what Trump said about that judge.  Or if a few of them do lose, it won’t be for lack of Clinton’s trying on their behalf.

Tags: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign Comments (0) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

from The Stage Coach, or the Road of Life (1843) by John Mills, Chapter XI “The Mudlark”

The night was very bright; a sharp frosty air whistled from the east, and the moon and the stars sparkled like frozen sleet in the sun. After the governor had scraped off the worst part of the slush, cleaned my face, and did the best he could for me, he shelled out the contents of the sack upon the side o’ the wessel, and commenced countin’ and feelin’ the pieces of silver with wonderful pleasure.

“I feel, Jack,” said the governor, smilin’ as if a feather was blown into his ear, ” I feel, Jack, as though I could play leap-frog with the lamp-posts. There’s a hundred ounces if there’s one.”

“If there hadn’t been a good swag,” replied I, almost fit to blubber with smarting so, “there’d a-been a deal o’ pain for short commons o’ profit.”

“As common as ditchwater, that is,” added my father, fixin’ the sack over his shoulders, “and we ought to be well satisfied when we get moderate profits to a lump o’ labour or pain. However, Jack, get on my back, and I’ll carry ye home.”

The above is the earliest literary mention of the “lump o’ labour” that I have ever found. “One-eyed” Jack Hogg is telling the story of the time when he was 10-years old and there was a fire at the silversmith’s shop at the corner of Adam Street.The melted silver was carried by the water into the storm drain. Jack’s father, a scavenger (the “mudlark”), sends him into the sewer to recover the lumps of silver but on his way back Jack drops his lantern and is immediately attacked by the sewer rats. He runs to the exit where his father beats off the last clinging rats and then cleans him up in the river. The retrieved “swag” is enough to keep the family in relative luxury for the next six months.

The preceding chapters of the book tell the story of a visiting professor of phrenology and the ruse played on him using a plaster cast from a Swedish turnip.

Comments (1) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

Eloquently.

I love you, Bernie. I’ll always love you, Bernie.  And I’ll be voting for Clinton in November.  Just as you will be.

Tags: Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Comments (20) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

One member of d. 2016 mentions the most recent one:

Charlie Manson remains alive.

And here’s something I put up about nine years ago; a collaboration with Liberace from a documentary about Jack Paar:

R.I.P., Muhammad Ali

Click on “Read More” to see the rest.

Comments (1) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

In the Category of General Blogs or blogs which focus on a variety of topics. These blogs regularly present on a variety of topics and are a great way to start understanding economics or even to keep up with current economic events.

- Marginal Revolution
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- Naked Capitalism
- Economists View
- Grasping Reality with the Invisible Hand
- EconBrowser
- Capital Markets & Economic Analysis
- Robert Reich
- The Baseline Scenario
- Cafe Hayek
- Chris Blattman
- On the Economy
- Economists Do It With Models
- Dani Rodrik’s weblog
- The Money Illusion
- The Angry Bear “The Angry Bear blog is a very popular multi-author blog. This left-leaning blog provides incisive commentary on U.S./Economics, law and politics. Popular topics: Law, U.S. Economic policies, politics

Angry Bear was ranked 17th. Not bad!

Comments (13) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

My opinion is that Trump is suffering from what I call “Attention-Seeking Deficit Disorder.” He doesn’t want to serve. He doesn’t want to be president; he wants the attention that accompanies the campaign. And now, I think he’s rather afraid that he might win. [Laughs] I don’t think he knows what he’s going to do as president.

– Lloyd Wright, the Democratic National Committee’s media coordinator during the 1964 race.

That quote appears in an interesting interview published on last weekend’s Politico Magazine, with the title “LBJ’s Ad Men: Here’s How Clinton Can Beat Trump–We talked to two of the geniuses behind the greatest ad campaign in political history. Here’s what they’d do in 2016.”  The interview is by Robert Mann, author of the book Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds: LBJ, Barry Goldwater, and the Ad That Changed American Politics.  (The other participant is Sid Myers, former art director at the campaign’s advertising firm.)

Earlier this week Trump was quoted as suggesting that he isn’t having very much fun anymore.  I think this occurred the day after the judge in the Trump U. case ordered the public release of deposition transcripts and other documents from the litigation’s discovery process—information that, at least in my opinion, will be a death blow to his candidacy.

But also within the last two or three days, as Trump has spiraled into undeniable madness, I’ve seen articles such as one today by NYT Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak titled “Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say.”  That article begins:

WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

All of the quotes in the article are from libertarian-right law professors.  But clearly, the expectation of blatantly unconstitutional conduct by Trump is hardly limited to that crowd.

Another article I read in the last day or two recounts the many statements Trump has made in the last few months that make clear that he doesn’t know even the basic contours of what each of the three branches of the federal government is charged under the Constitution with doing, and appears not to know that there is a separate of powers among the three branches under the Constitution.

Then there are those private conversations that Paul Ryan mentioned yesterday between him and Trump, which culminated in Ryan’s endorsement of Trump upon the stated ground that Trump would become Ryan’s puppet.  Trump, Ryan said, will support Ryan’s fiscal agenda. And regulatory agenda.  And Legal Movement agenda.  Which is what most large Republican donors care about.  Trump’s made it clear that the federal judiciary will be a branch of Koch Industries.  And that almost certainly is a promise he would keep.

Directly or via succession.  His own.

He’s assured Ryan that the Kochs, the securities and banking industry donors, and the pharmaceutical industry donors will control their respective industry’s administrative agencies, beyond anything that existed even in the Reagan and Bush II administrations. He’s done so publicly about the EPA.  And undoubtedly privately regarding the others.

Ryan doesn’t trust Trump to keep his promises.  But I think he needn’t worry, not because Trump himself actually understands what a promise is—he doesn’t—but because it will be Ryan and the Kochs who choose the vice presidential nominee.  The person who quickly will become the actual or de facto presidential nominee or, if the ticket wins, president within a few months.

I think Democrats need to consider the possibility of this scenario, and start seriously educating the public about the Ryan fiscal and deregulatory juggernaut in store for the country if the Republican ticket wins. And they should recognize that the real ballgame here may be the VP candidate.

If Trump remains the nominee and is elected, how long will he remain in office?

****

I’m not sure whether this is a serious post or not.

Tags: Adam Liptak, Donald Trump, Lloyd Wright, Paul Ryan, Robert Mann, Sid Myers Comments (21) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

Cue the Fed Taking a Dump in the Empty Punch Bowl

In May, the civilian labor force participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage
point to 62.6 percent. The rate has declined by 0.4 percentage point over the
past 2 months, offsetting gains in the first quarter.

But the headline number is “at full employment,” if you are determined to be stupid or the President of the Boston Fed (which did not used to be redundant).

The only thing that could save Janet Yellen’s reputation now would be if she became impaired or died before the 16th.

Meanwhile, the [ETA: major U.S. money-center] banks remain insolvent.

Comments (8) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

An idea to ponder…

When labor share is lower, the optimum level of capital utilization is lower.

Is this not obvious?

Comments (1) | Digg Facebook Twitter |

Brad DeLong wrote recently concerning the Uncertainty at the Fed…

“The heart of the trouble consists in the fact that neither financial-market participants nor, it seems, the Fed itself know the true state of the economy or how best to model it – especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis” (link)

It is a fact he says. The Fed and others do not know how best to model the state of the economy.

I stand alone with a new model for an Effective Demand limit as Keynes envisioned it.

The basic concept behind the model is that the percentage that labor receives of national income determines a limit upon the utilization of labor and capital in production. The key idea is that capital income based upon utilizing capital resources is optimized at the effective demand limit. Thus capital does not want to go beyond the limit because it begins to consume its power position in the aggregate. Capital seeks to consume labor income while maximizing its relative strength in the economic flow of money.

So why is my model good? While Brad DeLong points out the confusion from the Fed, my model is not confused.

• It knows why capacity utilization is dropping and why unemployment stays low.
• It knows why the output gap has continuously been revised downward, because the output gap was closed years ago in this business cycle.

• It knows why the Fed seems to want to normalize rates. The economy is at the end of the business cycle. Rates are supposed to be close to normalized by now.

So the confusion over where the state of the economy is has led to the uncertainty that Brad DeLong writes about… on both sides, the central banks and the market participants. We see a situation where the market participants see a different economic potential than economists. They have seen limitations in this business cycle. Yet the Fed is still waiting for inflation and demand to pick up, while top line revenue of firms has already topped out in the aggregate.

The Fed still sees that this business cycle will stay alive for another two years.  The disconnect has been severe for many years causing sluggishness in the economy.

The Fed does not want inflation above target because higher inflation causes distortions and slows growth. However, they have entered another situation where there models are misreading the state of the economy and leading to sluggishness anyway.

What is the equation of the effective demand limit?

Effective demand limit upon real GDP = rGDP*e*T/L* (1 – (1 – 1/e)*T/L)

T = capacity utilization * (1 – unemployment rate)
L = an effective demand limit function (Labor share index * 0.76)
e = 3 … coefficient to set maximum of effective demand at the stable equilibrium with production.

Effective labor share (L) determines the limit upon the % utilization of labor and capital in production. The following graph portrays Keynes’ vision of Effective Demand quite well. Let’s bear in mind that Keynes never gave an equation for effective demand. He only described how it seemed to work.

This equation works. The economy has followed this model for as long as we have data for capacity utilization… since 1967 to now.

Comments (8) | Digg Facebook Twitter |