The British Labour Party and economic decision making

It appears the British are getting ready to elect a Labour Party government which is hoping to introduce some “structural” changes to economic decision-making.

This blogger believes economic changes are urgently needed but also figures the changes proposed by the Labour Party will only change the faces making decisions and will do nothing to change the well-being of English people.

0*V_sRwC4Rvi4GfN3ZWhen socialists realize that central planning does not accomplish what they want they try to reform by decentralizing the central planning. To see how the British are likely to try this, see this article in The Economist.

The main issue in capitalism versus socialism is who gets to make decisions about what economic projects are undertaken and who gets to do them.

There are three main ways in which this decision-making can be done.

The first is that major decisions are made by bankers who get to do this via their control over money creation. Fractional reserve banking means bankers create money when they make loans and this gives them a great deal of power to decide what projects go ahead and by whom. The capital in capitalism comes from the money created when loans are made. Even small decisions like who gets to build housing and who gets to buy the houses are made by bankers when they approve the loans and mortgages. Any meaningful reform will require changes in the way in which money is created. There are ways to do this. Not only will bankers object to the loss of power but a lot of people have an emotional committment to money and will fiercely oppose changes. Another strong feature of this system is that governments pass legislation that restricts competition and allows some people to make profits. This system we call capitalism.

The second approach to decision-making is called socialism or central planning. Decisions are made by political leaders or their bureaucrats. Socialists like to use words such as “democratic” and “public interest” but in reality make decisions according to their own values and interests. Because of this socialist economies tend to be an inefficient use of resources. Decision making is still made by a few people even if they claim it is on behalf of others.

The third way of making decisions is a true market or perfect competition. We like to think our economy is based on markets but a lot of it is based on legislation that restricts competition such as patents, copyright,licensing and tariffs. In North America one area of life in which competition is allowed is religious services. As we are committed to freedom of religion the government does not interfere. One often hears of people who go church shopping.

Greens often say they want an economy based on small business but they also automatically reject everything said by economists. This is unfortunate because economics has worked out the theory of small business and can say exactly what to do.

In order to have perfect competition all participants in a market, sellers and purchasers, must be so small that no one can influence the price by increasing or decreasing the amount they buy or sell. There must also be perfect knowledge. All participants need to know all prices. Entry to and exit from an industry needs to be easy which means there can be no patents or copyright.

For the purposes of this post decision-making is made by customers who vote with their buying decisions. Price changes are signals to producers to increase or decrease production.

One of the reasons this blogger likes the true market economy is that it allows a lot of decisions to be made by individuals. One of the problems is that individuals to not have a lot of power. People with common vested can form powerful lobbying groups and can get governments to pass legislation which restricts competition and provides them with excess profits.

Socialists talk of giving workers influence over economic decisions, but their proposals give decision-making to boards or councils. Workers are also consumers and with a market system they will have the same influence as all consumers. A market system also allows for a great variety of products. For example, if schools were based on a market there could easily be schools based on different educational philosophies and parents could choose which they wanted for their children. A voucher system could ensure that all children got an education.

Socialists also argue that capitalism encourages greed. This may be true when decisions are made by bankers, but in a true market there are no profits, just wages and a return on investment. If there are profits being made in an industry, more people will go into it until there are no profits.

If the British Labour Party gets elected and is successful in changing the “structure” of their economy, they may change the size of a few of the units for which decision are being made. However, they will still be steering the same ship in the same ocean. Jeremy Corbyn is not radical or brave enough to change the way in which money is created or to drop a committment to economic growth, both of which are urgently needed to protect people from an economic collapse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pyramids, central planning and capitalism

Three or four millenia before anyone ever thought of the word capitalism the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids using an economic system which was probably closer to the Soviet’s central planning than American “capitalism”.

This blogger has just finished reading A history of Ancient Egypt from the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid (2012) by John Romer and found several points of interest.

It is amazing how much archeologists can tell about ancient Peoples but we also have to realize that we know very little about them.  Romer points out that some good stories have been told about ancients on very little evidence and that often the stories tell more about the authors than the ancients.  My speculation about Soviet style central planning may be an example.

Probably the most significant thing is there is no evidence of money.  The building of the pyramids involved up to forty or fifty thousand people, about ten percent of the working population.  This must have  involved a lot of planning and coordination.

Money and decision-making may be an issue here.  I am wondering if the pyramids could have been built if the ancient Egyptians had money.  Money as we know it represents purchasing power and control over resources.  With money decisions are made by those people who hold the money and they may not always agree.  Who made the decision that the ancient Egyptian  agricultural surplus was going to be used to build pyramids?  Was it one person, was it a small group or did they have a society wide consensus. Unless human nature has changed a lot in four thousand years I doubt if it was the later.  I bet a lot of current national leaders, even  some from democratic countries, would love to have the decision-making power the Pharaohs may have had.

It could be that freedom is in part the right to decide what to do with one’s share of the agricultural surplus and money is an important part of that freedom.  If you have money you have control over some resources. The more people who have money the more spread out is the decision-making and the greater variety of decisions.

Without money there would have been no saving as we think of it.  There was probably some storage of food and maybe some stockpiling of materials for construction but most of the work would have been done with current production and was dependent upon the agricultural surplus which allowed food for the construction workers.  This probably also applies to our own economy where a huge agricultural surplus allows most of us to work on other projects.

While working on the draft of this post I read this article in The Economist about capitalism and inequality.  There appears to be an assumption that capital is something which can be accumulated.  Certainly a large manufacturing or construction project requires resources beyond those available to most individuals but after reading about the ancient Egyptians it is not clear that one can accumulate “capital” .  What is required is control over a quantity of current or very recent production (or agricultural surplus).  The capitalist gets this control by getting money (purchasing power) from others in the form of loans or investments.  Governments sometimes have the ability to get control over large chunks of current production

Economics is about relationships including the relationship between people and their government.  For ancient Egypt the archeological record has two pieces of evidence.  A number of hieroglyphics show tribute being brought to the leaders and there are also the pyramids.

I enjoyed reading about the ancient Egyptians but I probably would not enjoy living in a society where all or most of the agricultural surplus went to another person’s project – except perhaps if I didn.t know anything else.

Banking union and rearranging the deck chairs

One of the ways being proposed to deal with the European part of the economic crisis is  centralized banking supervision.  More on that in this article in this week’s Economist.

The question here is would a banking union solve the problem.

Back when Russia was trying central planning and having problems, some people figured the solution was decentralized central planning.  Banking union  sounds like the reverse thinking. It also sounds like rearranging the deck chairs.

If the basic problems is the people or institutions or governments to whom the banks have loaned money are unable to repay those debts then centralization will not work because it will do nothing to reduce or repay the debt.

I think the financial side of the current economic crisis is rooted in the way we create money.  For more on this please see the essay on this  weblog titled “LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic crisis.”

 

If you liked this post your are invited to comment, press the like button and/or click  one of the share buttons. If you disagree you are invited to say why in a comment.  While I like the idea of sharing this platform, my personality is such that I don’t reply to many comments.

%d bloggers like this: