Posted on June 17, 2016 by Art Powell
How can we possibly afford a universal basic income?
This appears to be the strongest argument against an income scheme. It also illustrates one of the basic problems in economic analysis.
When macroeconomic professors stand at the black board they generally draw an x-shaped graph and label one line to represent the real or physical part the economy and the other to represent the financial side. This is an important distinction because if one analyses economic problems only in financial terms the complexities of the financial system get in the way of clearly seeing problems. Too often economic problems are analyzed in financial terms.
In the case of the universal basic income the question should be are we capable of producing enough goods and services to provide everyone with the desired standard of living. The answer should determine the level of the basic income.
There are a number of economic issues with which we need to deal: we have extracted the most easily accessible energy and mineral resources and those left require a lot of energy to get; there are serious problems resulting from the fractional reserve way of creating money; the work ethic is a problem in a high technology world; and there is a need to recognize our economy, what we call capitalism, is based on legislation which restricts competition and allows some people to make profits they would otherwise not get.
I believe most of these need to dealt with at the same time. Certainly a UBI should be introduced at the same time as a reform of the financial system. These are complex emotional issues and will be extremely difficult to resolve.
The book Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy, by the author of this post discusses these issues. Please have a look at it.
Filed under: Economics | Tagged: capitalism, economic analysis, Economics, financial reform, money creation, resources, technology, universal basic income | Leave a comment »
Posted on June 10, 2016 by Art Powell
The costs of solar energy are falling quickly and will probably soon be cheaper than more conventional sources. Does this mean we will once again have large quantities of cheap energy and a return to economic growth? Maybe and maybe not.
There may not be an immediate drop in the consumer price of power.
The maybe is because of the economic principle that price is equal to the marginal cost of the last unit produced and sold.This means solar will not influence the grid price until the whole current power infrastructure has been replaced. Until then the price will be set by whatever is the most expensive conventional power still being produced.
It also means firms producing solar power for the grid will be able to reap some windfall profits as their costs of production will be lower and falling. Given the current corporate culture that firms have an obligation to maximize their profits regardless we have to anticipate most firms will take full advantage of the windfall. We observe that lots of oil reserves can be extracted at costs much lower than the current marginal cost for more expensive oil. This means some firms and/or governments are reaping windfall profits
The bright spot will be if and when the cost of solar falls enough for small units to be economical and for consumers to be able to afford them.
A further complication is the debt factor. How much of the debt used to build the current infrastructure is outstanding? If a large amount has to be written off, it will probably come out of what is called high power money. If this declines rapidly it could affect the money supply and cause some economic decline.
As the price of solar falls no doubt lots of large companies will get involved but sadly most if benefits may go to the one per cent in profits and the rest of us will be left out in the cold. Expect turmoil rather than growth.
Filed under: Economics | Tagged: Economics, energy, marginal cost, power, Solar energy, solar power, windfall profits | Leave a comment »