Compassionate economics

Are the words compassion and economics compatible?

Absolutely. If we were to exchange goods and services without interference from legislation which restricts competition we would have an economy with a high degree of equality, fairness, environmental sustainability, peace and compassion.


Major evidence for this comes from the hunters and gatherers who used to inhabit this planet and especially the bushmen of the Kalihari Desert who lived a peaceful and sustainable lifestyle for close to 200,000 years


This writer has come to this conclusion after a lifetime of interest in current affairs and relationships, through a first class degree in economics from the University of British Columbia and lots of informal reading in economics, economic history, history, ancient history and anthropology.


That I feel it necessary to start this book with this question indicates how poorly so many people, including economists, understand economics and money. At least since Marx many people have equated economics with the evils of the current economic system and shut off whenever the word economics is used. This is sad because economics is about the relationships involved in the exchange of goods and services and most of us have to exchange with at least a few people. Money is a tool to facilitate this exchange. Both economics and money involve a lot of distortions of the truth which makes it easy for some people to exploit the rest of us.


team-spirit-2447163_1920As we work through compassionate economics the issue of the resource base hangs over us and makes life difficult for all of us.

Economics professors often start their lectures by drawing a simple x graph on the black board. One line represents the physical side of the economy and the other line represents the financial side of the economy. This is a very important distinction as ignoring it diverts our attention from the reality of economics.

As we mostly discuss economic problems in terms of money we ignore the physical side of the problem. For example, pensions are very important for most of us but we always talk about saving enough money rather than having enough energy and mineral resources. Two things could and probably will happen to most of the money people save for their retirement – inflation or bankruptcy. Our standard of living in retirement will depend upon the quantity of goods and services we are capable of producing relative to the number people making demands on that production. A key factor in this ratio will be the energy and mineral resources we have. There are still lots of these on the surface of our planet but we have consumed the most easily accessable.Those that are left will require a lot of energy to extract and may not be feasible.


The cost of solar energy has recently been falling quickly and has some potential. I also like that solar has the potential for each of us to make decisions about adopting it. It is great that individuals can make these decisions instead of bankers. The down side is that most of our money supply is based on debt and will disappear if a lot of loans have to be written off. I fear a lot of our money is based on loans made to support petroleum.


We need to exchange goods and services because we are social creatures. It may be this is what distinguishes us from animals. In some circumstances it may be possible for an individual to live alone but for most of us we must live with at least one other person and this means living in a relationship. On the Canadian Prairies the early explorers found they needed a female partner for survival because the division of labour was too much for one person. Later the settlers found that during harvest labour requirements were such that they needed to help each other and took turns at several farms. Now, with modern equipment one person can seed, fertilize and harvest up to 7,000 acres. But he still needs a huge support staff of suppliers. These he pays in cash rather than return labour. Economics is about how we exchange goods and services and the relationships which are a part of these exchanges.


Decision making is an important part of compassionate economics. When we make decisions for others we can and often do make those decisions by what is best for us rather than them. As there is no place for exploitation in compassionate economics we should as much as possible exchange goods and services so that individuals can make decisions for themselves. In capitalism bankers and government make decisions about what and how much is to be produced. In socialism bureaucrats in the form of central planners make those decisions. The only way I know to allow individuals to make economic decisions is the perfect competition model upon which the formal study of economics based.

At least since Marx economics has been defined as either capitalist or socialist. Both of these are very vague terms which is good for people who want to control or exploit others but meaningless for those of us who want to understand how we exchange goods and services. The main feature of capitalism as we know it is that governments pass legislation which restricts competition and we call it a market economy. The main feature of socialism is a matrix known as central planning and they say it is “by the people and for the people”. Both concepts are the idealogical equivalent of the stuff through which one would walk if one visited a cattle feed lot.

For four years this guy lived on a British Columbia coastal Indian reserve. One evening a old timer told us about the time consuming process his people used to make themselves a sweet treat,

“Do you still do this,?” I asked?

“No,” he replied. “It is a lot easier to go to Dairy Queen.”

These people did most of their hunting at the local supermarket but they still fished and they still had a few of their old traditions. One of these traditions was the sharing of fish and we had a lot of salmon, halibut, crab and oolichans (a very small, oily and smelly fish.)

It appears that in a lot of hunting gathering cultures sharing mostly with family or clan members was the predominant way of exchange. This is a major difference from our culture where it is assumed the exchange of goods and services should yield a profit. I would like us to plagiarize the hunters and gathers and make sharing the key concept in our economy. This is somewhat radical and would open the door to some major changes in our economy – a guaranteed income policy, a new way of creating money and a zero growth economy. All of these are important for resource and environmental concerns. All of these are important if we are to have a compassionate economy.

One of the major issues we have to deal with is the incompatibility of economic growth and environmental issues such as global warming, pollution, mono culture agriculture, health and overpopulation. The need for economic growth is sold as a fix for unemployment although its main purpose may be to further increase the wealth of the one percent. As compassionate economics is based on sharing rather than profits there is no need for further economic growth. With a guaranteed income scheme people will not need jobs to survive and we can deal with environmental concerns. We will also no longer need to support the greatest of all make work schemes, the arms industry. Lets opt for peace and sharing with all peoples. The goal of compassionate economics is to get the population to a sustainable level and live in peace.

Compassionate economics will allow us to replace our commitment to the work ethic with a commitment to a leisure ethic. In future we should get our self identity from the leisure activities in which we engage whether they be acting in a play, writing a book or even drinking beer.It is relatively easy for me to sit here in a comfortable chair and a nice view out the window and think out solutions to economic problems. But economics involves people with emotions and special interests. A lot of people will find it difficult to see the need for changes and those with special interests will be very vocal in protecting themselves. However I believe the future of most of us is seriousl

It is a pity that so many people shut off when they hear the word “economics.” A few years ago I read a book on green economics which promoted small businesses. I laughed and cried because economic theory is based on the concept of small businesses. One of the key assumptions of economics is that no firm is large enough to influence prices by restricting production and by restricting the quantity purchased.

A key feature of a true market economy as described by economic theory is that there are no profits. If there are profits to be made in an industry new firms will enter until prices drop to the point where there are no more profits. Firms can make wages and a return on investment (maybe) but there will be no profits. Thus a perfect market economy with competition is what is needed for a compassionate economy. A lot of people need to be studying formal economics.

It is relatively easy for me to sit here in a comfortable chair and a nice view out the window and think out solutions to economic problems. But economics involves people with emotions and special interests. A lot of people will find it difficult to see the need for changes and those with special interests will be very vocal in protecting themselves. However I believe the future of most of us is seriously threatened and we must at least try for compassionate economics.

 

Advertisements

Good relationships and good economics

 

Economics is the most fundamental of social sciences because it is about relationships. The study of economics should be about the ways in which we can organize the exchange of goods and services. As this involves interacting with others it is largely about how we deal with family, friends and neighbors. The study of economics should include economic history, the economies of previous civilizations and economic anthropology. It also means we should be trying to organize an economy based on good relationships.

As exchange involves dealing with other people in a variety of different ways from theft to giving, economics involves the study of how we deal with each other.

A fundamental of relationships is that for a relationship to be satisfactory there must be a more or less equal two-way exchange. Sadly our current economy is based mostly on exploitation. The culture of a lot of businesses, especially large ones, is to make as much profit as possible, even if it means taking advantage of customers.

The challenge is to organize our economy so that our economic relationships qualify as being good – equal exchanges. This writer suggests two sources of inspiration; the bushmen of the Kalahari desert in Africa and the perfect completion model of economics.

lion-577104_1920There is archeological evidence that the bushmen have sustained a stable society for up to 200,000 years. Survival has been without wars and exploitation. This is an incredible accomplishment. We owe it to ourselves to examine their society to see what we can copy. Genius is 90 per cent plagiarism.

These hunters and gathers have been well-studied. My reference is Affluence without Abundance: The disappearing world of the bushmen by James Suzman published by Bloomsbury in 2017.

The Bushmen were hunters and gathers living from hand to mouth and relocating frequently. As they had to carry everything when they moved they developed a mindset that had little need or use for material things other than a few basics. Their knowledge of their environment was such that they always had sufficient food available with a minimum of “work”. They worked for survival rather than to satisfy their own or other people’s ambition.

As they always had adequate food, surpluses and savings were not part of their lives or their thinking. This was important as surpluses and saving must be controlled and this can lead to unequal relationships and exploitation.

Leadership was very low-key and social control was mostly verbal via teasing and ridicule. As they lived in small groups the size of which changed with the seasons it was easy to get away from social conflicts. (This is a major problem for Canadian native people many of whom live on reserves and cannot easily relocate.)

This blogger does not want to adopt a total hunting and gathering lifestyle especially as the size of the world’s population makes it difficult if not impossible. However I believe these people have a lot to teach us about relationships and economics and values. It could be we are the ones who are uncivilized.

We often lie to ourselves and the greatest lies are about economics. The greatest lie is that our economy is based on capitalism and markets. This is a falsehood to cover the fact our economy is based upon legislation that restricts competition. So long as we believe the lies we can continue to promote an economy that is unequal and exploitive.

I believe if we really want an economy which encourages good relationships we should use the perfect competition model as a guideline. All legislation which restricts competition should be repealed. This includes patent and copyright legislation and licensing. Subsides should be given to consumers rather than producers in the form of a guaranteed income scheme. Businesses would be mostly small-scale; so small that participants would be unable to control prices with spending and purchasing decisions. These changes would do away with huge profits and most high incomes. Economic growth would not be needed as people would not have to have jobs to survive. These changes would also cause a lot of screaming from the people who benefit from competition.

Another good feature would be better relationships as people would be able to interact without trying to exploit each other.

One of the differences between hunting and gathering societies and the “civilizations” which have dominated history is who makes decisions. When people are working for survival rather than to satisfy ambitions they make their own decisions. When they are working for ambition decisions are made be the owner of the ambition.

Force is one of the ways people get others to work for them. Other ways are psychological – the work ethic, marketing techniques, limiting free speech, limiting voting rights, making people feel guilty and using logical fallacies to influence thinking. The last two have been and are being used to great effect by feminists. My experience of this world and my observations of this world tell me feminism is mostly BS and a control issue. Feminists want to control men and their thinking. They do a lot to discourage good relationships.

A lot of us have been so indoctrinated with the “capitalist” way of thinking we do not realize the extent to which we are being exploited. Some studies of people on their death beds have found that the greatest regrets are for placing profits above relationships.

Most of us have been raised in a culture which places material things above all else. This blogger believes we should learn from the bushmen to adapt to a non-growth economy and focus on good relationships. The perfect competition model of economics provides some good guidelines as to how to get there.

 

Free trade; not trade wars or negotiated trade

With a lot of Americans fearful for their jobs and their president saying he can protect jobs with tariffs, international trade has become a big emotional issue.

Trade is such an emotional issue because our economy is organized such that our physical and psychological well-being requires us to have steady employment. At the same time economic changes require employment flexibility. One way to deal with this conflict would be to have a guaranteed income scheme so that individuals can cope with changes. My committment to such a scheme stands behind the rest of this post and indeed all the posts on this weblog. If people can survive comfortably without employment then this fear should no longer be a factor.

We should also analyse economic issues in physical or real terms rather than financial terms. Trade is the exchange of goods and services, not money which is a tool to facilitate the exchanges. It is very easy to get a distorted picture of the economy when people analyse economic problems in financial terms.

For all merchant-pull-1398066_1920we talk about the market economy and our devotion to competition, we have a long tradition of restricting competition. One of the ways we do that is by imposing tariffs on imports from other countries. Other ways we restrict competition with subsidies and legislation.

The economics law of comparative advantage says countries are better off to specialize and trade, even if one country is more efficient in the production of all items. This is attractive to people who want economic growth. This blogger also likes the idea of efficiency so that we can have more time for leisure activities.

I also believe the best way to do free trade is unilaterally. To do free trade and get the full benefits Canada should abolish all tariffs and restrictions on foreign goods and services coming into the country regardless of what other countries do. If other countries want to subsidize our lifestyle, then that is up to them. If they do not want to buy from us, then that is saving our resource base for the benefit of our children.

The free trade agreements of which governments are so fond are in reality negotiated trade agreements. They are negotiated for the sake of special interests of producers. These are the same interests as those who want legislation to restrict competition – patents, copyright, licensing – and who want subsidies for their firms. To get a feel for the complexity of these negotiations look at this article in The Economist. Trying to negotiate to satisfy the special interests of multiple countries must be an impossible challenge.

International trade is not such an important issue for Americans because the United States is one large free trade zone and they are or have benefited from the law of comparative advantage.

Economics is a social activity and like all relationships, to be satisfying for all parties there needs to be a more or less equal exchange. Those Americans who promote trade wars are being anti social. To me that sounds un-American.

Lots of politicians and commentators worry about the dire consequences of American tariffs and the resulting trade wars. Yes. we are headed into some even more serious economic problems but they will not be caused by tariffs and trade wars. The basic problem is that we have used up the most easily accessible energy and mineral resources. Increased efficiency from free trade will help us cope with this issue but will not solve it.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That evil man destroying people and resources

The day after the American election the skies around our place were overcast but all indications were that the sun rose and set as normal.  The question now is what sort of economic policies Donald Trump will implement.  Expect to see more resource exploitation, legislation and policies to restrict competition and more subsidies to business.  His economic policies will probably differ from Hillary’s mostly by degree.  Some people and the environment will probably suffer.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that he is unlikely to be able to do all the things he wants. About half of Americans did not want him to be president and most of these will be against at least some of his policies.  Many of those who voted for him will have conflicting vested interests and he will have to make some tough decisions.

Being president of the United States requires two skill sets – campaigning and governing. Trump has proven himself a master of the first set and now has to prove himself as a governor.  A lot of his campaign was based on emotions and he demonstrated an excellent understanding of people and their emotions.   His win must have been a blow for people who are politically correct. One of the buttons he pushed was sexuality.  He demonstrated that at least half of those who voted have not been suckered by the sophistry of feminism.  I wonder how many women had fantasies in which they were the object of his attentions and how many went on to vote for him.

His emotional campaign could become a big problem for him as many people will feel disappointed if he can not or will not keep promises.

As this is written Trump’s economic policies are mostly unstated but he prides himself on being a businessman so we can expect America to be open for business and we can expect policies which will allow a few people to make lots of money by exploiting other people and resources.  But then this is the history of North America and most of the world.

This writer believes our current economic problems are with the available energy and mineral resources.  Yes, there are lots of these still in the crust of the earth.  But we have “cherry picked” the most accessible and those that are left require so much energy their value is limited.  As not many people believe this, or care, we can expect the new president to encourage the exploitation of what is left, even those that are in parks or other reserves.  The consequences of this policy will be to bring forward the timing of a major economic collapse.

We boast we live in a market economy based on competition but a lot of economic legislation restricts competition so business people can make profits.  If we had perfect competition there would be no profits.  There may be little room for more legislation to restrict competition but if business people can think up some we can expect President Trump to be sympathetic.  He has already indicated he will restrict trade.

Us Canadians sometimes talk about corporate welfare bums who thrive on government subsidies.  Americans are probably already familiar with the concept and the new government will probably continue and increase the trend  No doubt some business people will be claiming a need for subsidies to extract the more difficult energy and mineral deposits.

I was disappointed rather than surprised with the election results because I fear a major economic collapse.  Also I suspect Mrs. Clinton would have followed similar economic policies even if not as blatantly.  We are in the same ship with the same storms and neither is likely to even try to get into a different sea.

Regulating those evil payday lenders

Here is a link to an article from the Mises Institute opposing regulations for the American payday lending industry.

This simple proposal to regulate short-term lending raises important questions about how we treat poor people, about the role of money in our economy and how we regulate business activity.

This writer believes we should have a collective responsibility to ensure every one has the opportunity for the same standard of living as most other people.  Probably the best way to meet this responsibility would be a universal basic income scheme.  Such a program would not stop everyone from mismanaging their finances but it should eliminate the need for a lot of short-term credit.

Money can be an instrument of exploitation and is based on the debt created when banks make loans.  Debt is a path to slavery, especially for poor people.

We need a radical revision of the way in which we create money.  We treat money as a commodity which has its own intrinsic  value.  We would be better to treat money as a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.  As a tool rather than a commodity there would be no need for interest.  Also the total amount of money available needs to be flexible up and down as the quantity of goods and services we need to exchange expands or retracts.  This guy has written extensively on this topic on his weblog and in his book.

As much as possibly economic forces, competition, should be used to regulate business activity. The more competition the fewer profits and the less need for regulation.  Regulations tend to restrict competition, allow greater profits and increase the demand for more regulations.

This writer is not enthusiastic about supporting the payday loan industry but does recognize that in our society there is a need for short-term credit.  I also believe there is a need to reform our financial system and the reforms could reduce the need for credit from all of us including the poor.

Occupational licensing – income protection, competition and competency

As the economy tightens occupational licensing is becoming more prevalent and controversial.  This blogger sees it as involving three issues – income protection, competition and competency.

Occupational licensing is the trend to require people in more and more occupations to have licenses to practice.  It has traditionally been used for professionals and is usually said to be needed to protect the public from incompetent practitioners.  As more occupations have required licenses it appears to have gone to ridiculous extremes.

Regardless of the public protection arguments the main function is to restrict competition and it appears to be working according to an article which shows higher incomes for those so protected. This is good for workers who are protected but does nothing for people who remain unemployed or otherwise unprotected from competition.  Another way to help people with income problems would be a universal basic income.  A UBI would ensure all people would have the opportunity for a minimum standard of living.

A UBI would also allow us to maintain a market economy based on competition with all the benefits efficiency and individual decision-making.

Occupational licensing also restricts the right of consumers to make choices about the services we purchase.  A lot of us do not always have the knowledge to evaluate a practitioner.  This blogger likes Milton Friedman’s proposal for certification by private organizations rather than licensing by governments. There could be different levels or types of certification.  This would help those of us with out knowledge and maintain our right to make choices for ourselves.

There are other ways of resolving the issues that lead to occupational licensing and these ways would protect the incomes of everyone, allow more competition in the economy and protect us from our ignorance.

%d bloggers like this: