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.

Paying the piper/economist and making economic decisions

He who pays the piper calls the tune. This applies to economists as well as musicians and explains why economists have so much difficulty coming to terms with the ideological aspects of their field.

This post was prompted by an article about whether economists are biased towards the free market or towards regulation.  This blogger would prefer to evaluate economies according to who makes decisions.

I get suspicious when I hear economists talk about the “free market”  because they usually mean something different to what I understand is a free market economy.  To me a free market economy is one based on the perfect competition model.  What we actually have is an economy where governments pass legislation to restrict competition.  Copyright, patents, licensing, tariffs, health and safety regulations all work to restrict competition and allow some people to make profits they would not get in a competitive economy.

Sometimes the profit making gets out of control and the way to deal with this is to introduce  regulations  rather than to return to more competition.  Therefore I figure the debate in this article is irrelevant.

What is relevant is who makes economic decisions.  If we had perfect competition most if not all decisions would be made by consumers who would vote with their spending decisions.  Unfortunately there are too many people in this world who like to make decisions for others.

One of the big things which influences decision making is the fractional reserve way of creating money.  In this process money is created when bankers make loans and as they get to decide who gets loans they have a say over what economic activity is  going to take place.  If we had a national exchange trading system as proposed in the essay “LETS to market: Dealing with the economic crisis” on this weblog money would be created via payments to individuals who would then make decisions in their purchases or investments.

The fractional reserve system  also limits decision making in that many people, especially during their working years, carry a large debt load.  As most of us have to work to repay our debts, we are forced to support another person’s decisions.  And the work ethic adds a lot of support.

Governments also interfere with decision making by passing legislation which restricts competition and by accessing large amounts of created money.  This of course allows them to make economic decisions according to their values which don’t always agree with their citizens.

My view of how the economy works is less than consistent with conventional economic wisdom.  Readers will decide for themselves which view  they want to accept but I will point out that economists who don’t promote the conventional view probably don’t stand much chance of holding important high paying jobs.  People in power, industry or government, want to feel they are doing good and it is the role of economists to say what their employers want to hear and most economists are paid directly or indirectly by business or government.

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.

 

 

Equality – the impossible dream

Charlie can’t breathe

The most evil of all people are those who believe they can force their religion, beliefs, values and will upon others.  There are evil people in all nations, religions and cultures.

Inequality is an issue that will probably never go away because it has traditionally been the natural order and because its solution, perfect competition,  is something few people will be able to accept.

Inequality was a feature of Roman and Medieval societies and probably of most historical large-scale civilizations.  To find true equality one would probably have to look to small tribal groups where everybody knew each other and were probably related.  (I suspect these groups had relationship problems in that lots of people didn’t speak to each other.)

In historical civilizations the elite depended upon the work of the peasants for their food and luxuries.  The challenge was to confiscate as much of the agricultural surplus as possible while leaving enough for subsistence.  Probably a factor in the calculations was the supply of workers.  If there was a shortage, the workers were able to retain a little more than when there was a good supply.

Inequality has historically been so much the norm that the general prosperity following  the industrial revolution should be considered an aberration. One of the things which has happened since the start of the industrial revolution has been  the exploitation of energy and mineral resources found in the earth’s crust.  The result has been a lot of prosperity which had to be shared with most of the population because the prosperity depended upon the labor of the working people.  Once again supply of workers was  a concern and generally  there was a shortage – until recently.  With a limited supply of labor the elite had to tolerate sharing some of the wealth.

In historical times the agricultural surplus was probably taken with the use of force or the threat of its use.    Since the industrial revolution the elite has discovered a less messy way of getting the greater share – legislation which restricts competition and allows for profits.  If we had perfect competition there would be no profits, we would have equality and the one percent would be just like the rest of us.  Licensing, copyrights, patents, health and safety regulations and tariffs all work to restrict competition.  If we did not have copyright Bill Gates would be just another programmer and we would all be using super great software. Recent prosperity has been so great leaving some for the rest of us was not an issue.

Other ways in which  the elite exploit us are  by the work ethic and debt.  So long as we believe in the divine nature of work we will continue to produce the profits which the elite need to maintain their fortunes.  So long as our money system is based on debt we will be chained to our employers.

It may be the golden age of prosperity is coming to an end.  We still have lots of mineral and energy resources but the most easily accessible have been taken.  It now takes more energy and effort to get at what is left and this limits the potential for future growth.

With the end of growth and a surplus of workers we are ripe for a return to historical inequality.where the elites take for themselves most of the agricultural surplus and leave a minimum for everybody else.  The difference is that we now have technology to replace workers.  This guy does not want to think about the implications of this.

It is my understanding that in some parts of the United States some local level governments are getting a significant part of their revenues from petty  fines enforced by police.  This source of revenue falls heaviest on poor people.  The justice of this program is questionable. Another source of revenue is called civil forfeiture where authorities confiscate the proceeds of crime even if there has been no conviction.  Once again this has potential for abuse and raises justice questions.   I am sad to report that my home province of British Columbia uses this process.

I have to wonder if these developments are part of increasing inequality and a return to inequality enforced with force in that they have a lot of potential for abuse of poor people and involve police.

This writer is pessimistic about the future.  To increase equality we will probably have to increase competition and introduce an income scheme.  These are controversial concepts although they will never come into being if we don’t talk about them.  In the meantime,   probably the best way for individuals to deal with inequality is to become a part of the minority  and one does that by taking advantage of legislation which restricts competition.

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.

Regulating business with competition

Generally we try to protect ourselves from the excesses of capitalism with regulations.  An alternative method may be to increase competition.

Capitalism is known for its disregard for health and safety concerns and for its excessive profits.  To deal with these problems we impose regulations on firms.  As people are good at getting around regulations the natural reaction is to increase the regulations.

An alternative approach would be to increase competition.

One of the myths of our economy is to equate competition and capitalism.  The reality is that capitalism depends upon governments passing legislation which limits competition.  Most economic legislation, while labeled as consumer protection, works to restrict competition.  For example, many manufactured items are subject to strict regulations as a safety thing. .  But these regulations tend to be set so that only large producers can comply.  This means that specialty manufacturers cannot afford to get started as the extra costs have to charged to a small production run.

Health and safety regulations, copyright and patent legislation and licensing requirements all work to limit competition.

Here in Canada we have a strong commitment to separation of church and state.  The result is that the provision of spiritual and religious services comes closer than anything else to the perfect competition model.  When people move into a new area they often go church shopping, even among churches of the same denomination. 

Churches are also the least regulated institutions in the country as their members look after that either by asking their ministers to leave or by leaving themselves.  (Ministers get fired for one of two reasons – they get into relationships their congregations consider inappropriate or they over stay their welcome.)    When the United Church of Canada decided to ordain and marry gays and lesbians a lot of people switched denominations.

This blogger figures  increasing competition in most if not all industries would do a lot to resolve the excesses of capitalism and reduce the need for regulations.

One of the requirements of perfect competition is that all participants have perfect knowledge.  Therefore the only regulation needed is that firms be required to publish all the information customers need to make good decisions.  This would require us to take responsibility for our own lives rather than expecting the government to look after us.

I realize this suggestion is a political can of worms as people don’t like to reveal secrets.  However with internet and smart phone technology more and more information will be easily available.  Rather than trying to increase regulations we should demand that this information be made generally available so that we as consumers can become the regulators – just like church goers.

 

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.

Uber, the sharing economy and competition

This guy probably should not write about Uber and the taxi business.  I don’t own a smart phone;  I live 15 miles into the country from a one-taxi town and I can recall using a taxi twice in the last 15 years.  However, taking the risk, here are some observations. The first is that the “sharing means economy”  competition.  We sometimes distort the meanings of words to hide realities and the reality here is that we are introducing more competition into our economy.  This guy lived for four years on a British Columbia coastal Indian reserve where the sharing economy meant that fishermen shared their catches or when  somebody faced a medical emergency they would get a fundraising dinner.  (This was very important where most emergencies meant an expensive plane trip to the big city.)   The sharing features of their economy were probably inherited from pre-white contact times. Our society gives lip service to the market economy and competition but when we get to the details our commitment varies according to the color of the hat we are wearing.  It is not surprising consumers of taxi services are quite fond of Uber but the owners of taxis and their drivers are feeling threatened by the increased competition. Traditionally the taxi industry has dealt with competition by convincing local governments to license their cars.  By limiting the number of cars they can limit competition and keep prices up.  If customers have to wait that is irrelevant. A second observation is that providing transportation to others is low paid work and probably always will be regardless of Uber promises to prospective drivers.  A Google of “taxi driver earnings” shows that a few drivers earn less than minimum wage and most are only a little better.  One has to anticipate that once Uber has changed the industry this will continue to apply.   As with many low-paid occupations there are opportunities to exploit workers.  It may be that Uber with its computerized collection of data will be more transparent and less exploitative. One of those who appear to have been deceived by the term “sharing economy” is Janice Stein, director of the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto.  In this essay she writes as if the sharing economy is a new reality based on “disruptive technologies.”  (The internal combustion engine was once a disruptive technology.) One of her criticisms of the sharing economy  is that  “The best available evidence shows that many people who seem to be stringing together part-time work in “sharing” enterprises are at or below the poverty line, with no employment benefits and a social safety net that only the state provides.”  Neither increased competition or disruptive technologies should be blamed for current economic problems. Another criticism is that people providing services are not regulated, avoid safety inspections and don’t pay taxes.  We must be careful here because regulations including safety inspections can be an excuse to limit competition.  As I understand it the new technology makes it easy for customers to provide evaluations and regulation.  A driver with and unsafe car would be quickly be called on it. Uber has been criticized for its “surge” pricing.  This is the same as time of day pricing which some power utilities are or will be introducing.  Prices should be determined by supply and demand.  One of the problems with the regular taxi business is that does not meet changes in demand throughout the day. One last concern must be privacy.  We should assume anything that happens with a computer is probably being stored and is probably available to advertisers and government agents.  Most people appear to be not worried about the amount of advertising to which they are exposed.  The risk from government is that people don’t like to be criticized.   Computerized data make it easy for government agents to decide who are the enemies of the state, anyone who disagrees with their personal beliefs, and to track them. I find that frightening. The sharing economy is making some industries more competitive which is good for consumers and maybe not so good for producers.  Its downside is the potential for social control which goes with the extensive use of computers. 

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: