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.

 

Fake promises in the next presidential election

It appears the next American presidential election will be a battle of fake promises as Donald Trump and a left-wing democrat appeal to American emotions.

Trump will almost certainly bases his campaign on the formula that worked last time; vague general promises (make America great again) and some easy to keep promises that appeal to his core supporters (move embassy to Jerusalem.). Most of his promises will be appeals to emotions.

White House Flag Democrates RepublicanThe democrats will base their campaign on a promise of full employment as reported in this recent article in The Economist. Full employment has been an American policy goal for a long time, If it were possible it would have been attained a long time ago. To promote it now is an emotional appeal to counter Trump’s emotional promises. And it is destined to failure and will probably destroy the economic future of a lot of Americans.

One could probably predict that both Trump and the democrat will come out of the election with DBS degrees. (The D stands for doctor and the rest all English speakers should know).

The main issue, which will not be acknowledged during the campaign, is the size of the resource base for future economic activity. This blogger believes there are loads of energy and mineral resources left on the planet. However, we have cherry picked those which are readily available. Those which are left are so difficult to extract they are for the most part useless for future economic development.

If this analysis is correct then promises of full employment will be impossible to keep. Attempting to keep them will accelerate the use of the remaining energy and mineral resources and bring forward a major economic collapse.

Another factor when employment is an issue is our commitment to the work ethic. Some people believe their salvation depends upon their working hard and others worry that some people will receive benefits which they have not earned or to which they are not entitled. Everyone must do their share.

This blogger believes the material standard of living to which we have become accustomed is based on the agricultural surplus which allows a few people to produce enough food for everyone. As this surplus is the result of several millenia of technological development it should be a part of our inheritance. All of us should be entitled to a standard of living equal to everyone else regardless of what we do with our time.

With our standard of living dependent upon jobs and with our psychological well-being also dependent up on our having a job, promises of full employment will have a very strong appeal to many Americans. The success of the promise depends upon the ability of the economy for even more growth. This blogger has serious doubts about that. I am old enough to remember when people were saying we will just have to get used to an unemployment rate of three per cent.

The economic challenges facing the people of this world are overwhelming. Solutions will required a major rethinking of values about work and economic growth. An American presidential election would be an ideal time for a serious debate about the economic future.

The toughest part of this issue is how to deal with it. In the past I have voted for candidates with the least chance of winning because they have been the most honest. I have also deliberately spoiled by ballots. Both of these seem like a cop-out. I do not have the personality nor the skills to be a candidate let alone convince people of my economic policies. I do not even have the skills to go to election meetings and challenge the candidates. I also believe any candidate who tried to be honest would be nailed to the cross by fake election promises and appeals to emotions.

 

 

 

 

 

Why we need free range kids and free range education

There is an ancient wisdom saying that happiness is the result of right action. Therefore, if one wants to be happy one should be careful in chosing one’s actions. This blogger would also say we should choose our actions ourselves rather than letting others do it for us.

These thoughts were prompted by an article in The Economist about educating bright children so that they can contribute the most to society. The issue is who decides what is “the most”.

Student Character Holding Big Pencil ClipartMy concern is that The Economist is evaluating education by the incomes and the numbers of patents that people produce in their careers. This is from a magazine whose writers are dedicated to continued economic growth at a time when further growth may be difficult. It may be that in the future success will go to those capable of coping without a lot of material things.

As this post is mostly about values I should state I value highly individual thought and decision making. People should be encouraged to have different life and educational experiences. Children should be raised “free range” and education should cover a variety of topics including cross discipline. One of my concerns about educational trends as reported by The Economist is that the goal is to have every body thinking the same – with a common devotion to economic growth. If we are to cope with negative growth we must have people educated to think outside the box represented by The Economist.

How do we define success? How do we measure success? Is economic success the responsibility of schools? For some people success is living a long time, or ending life with lots of money and/or toys, or having done lots of travel, having done lots of things or having had lots of sex. Each of us should define success for ourselves rather than going with another person’s definition.

Economics is about relationships and economic success should be about good relationships rather than resource exploitation. One of the fundamentals of good relationships is that there should be a more or less equal exchange between those involved.

Sometimes it feels as if a lot of people are prepared to sacrifice ethics for profits. Corporate culture appears to encourage this. That some major Canadian corporation (banks and telecommunications) encourage their sales people to use exploitive techniques is an indication that our economy is not based on good relationships

When the economy is on a down trend education is so young people can get good marks on exams. Some people spend large sums of money hoping to give their children a slight edge. If we were not so competitive we might find a greater happiness in co-operation.

The future is going to be difficult because we do not have the energy and mineral resources to support continued economic growth and even more people. To survive we need to educate children to think outside the economic box; we need free range children and free range education. We need people who will not accept the status quo and who will think independently of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, both of whom are dedicated to conning us into buying more stuff – or voting for candidates of their choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic growth, sustainability and degrowth

A lot of people realize there are problems with the economy but few if any understand what is happening. Therefore we have varied reactions. Many people cling to faith in economic growth, some are exploring the concept of sustainability and a few are looking at “degrowth”. This blogger thinks of the three approaches as points on the ray of a matrix.

Predicting the future is difficult although the shorter the term the easier it is. Economists are little help because most are paid directly by business people or indirectly through government. Very few people get away with telling the whole truth to the people who pay them. Most economists find it expedient to say what their employers want to hear and that is mostly that the economy will continue to grow and that there will be continuing profits.

Nor can we expect the truth from political leaders as their positions depend on maintaining the support of the people. It is hard to think of any government leader telling us we will have to tighten our belts and remaining in power. Are citizens mature enough to listen to that? It would be interesting to see a political leader try.

trafficOur recent economic memory is based on a tremendous use of energy and mineral resources. Not only have we fought two world wars we have also had the resources for an incredible standard a living in which the rich have grown richer and the rest of us have done okay. The result is we have a strong committment to economic growth and a belief that it will continue forever.

Many economists are fond of regression analysis because it assumes constant economic growth. It is a mathematical formula which takes a series of data points and calculates the best fitting straight line through them. It is generally assumed this line will angle up.

This guy thinks we would get a more truthful picture of what happens in the economy if we were to use fractal analysis. Fractals are series of ups and downs each with a subseries of ups and downs within them. The sea coasts are often used as examples. The mathematics of fractals is not as clear as regression analysis but there are some useful concepts. I am fairly certain those people who do “black box” analysis of stock markets are using fractal analysis. They are apparently having some success. The concept of fractal dimension can be calculated (two minus the Hurst exponent) and changes indicate a change in direction.

If we were to apply fractal analysis to economics it would be easier to see and accept ups and downs in the economy and easier to develop mechanisms to deal with them.

The word “sustainable” as applied to economic growth is a buzzword in some circles but I find it challenging as its meaning is not clear. I suspect it is mostly a cover for continued economic growth.

To the extent that some people use fewer energy and mineral resources it is good but I suspect that sustainable development maintains a committment to economic growth. Sustainable to me means going on forever and that is what a lot of people believe about economic growth.

The reality is that the quantity of goods and services we can produce and exchange depends upon the quantity of energy and mineral  resources we have and can retrieve with a reasonable expenditure of energy. The concept of sustainable development is probably 100 years too late.

Our committment to economic growth is so strong I am not aware of any career economist having thought about what happens when the economy goes into decline. This is unfortunate as the economy regularly goes into recession and this time it may be extended.

This blogger figures current economic problems are because we have used up the most accessible energy and mineral resources. Sure, there are lots left but they require massive amounts of energy to retrieve them. Solar may help but not yet. I fear that we will be forced into degrowth.

If so the challenge will be to figure out how do distribute fairly the goods and services we have, how to cope with leisure, how to create money that will not disappear during a crisis and how to not fight over the available resources.

Money will be a special problem as fractional reserve banking works only in times of economic growth. When growth stops and banks stop making loans  the money supply goes down and because it is fractional reserve the money supply goes down with a multiplier effect. Ouch. A super big ouch.

There are lots of anecdotal evidence from around the world that we are going into a down economy. This could easily be an explanation for a lot of the negative news, both economic and non-economic, to which we are becoming accustomed.

If we could get away from our committment to economic growth we could focus instead on happiness. This concept is impossible to measure although there is some evidence that people do not need a lot of material things to be happy.

What ever happens and wherever humanity ends up it looks as if we will experience a lot of human suffering. I would like for us to minimize the suffering and maximize the happiness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recycling is not enough

In this corner of the world recycling is almost universal.  Plastics, glass, metals, compost and drink containers are separated from the rest of the garbage.  Some people also take their own shopping bags to the supermarket.  The exceptions are that we have not mastered the technology of recycling energy and most of us continue to drive a lot

Unfortunately we are still experiencing environmental degradation, inflation and unemployment.  Recycling is not enough.  Its main function is to allow us to feel we are doing something. It allows us to ignore the real issues –  population levels and values.

I believe the most important way in to protect the environment is to reduce the number of people trying to live on this planet.  There are just too many people and I do not like the idea of saying some people should not have the same standard of living as others.  Who is to decide who gets shorted?

I also recognize it is a near impossibility as we cannot tell people not to have sex and not to have children.  What are the consequences of not taking action to reduce the population?  When the Europeans came to North America they brought with them some new diseases and close to 90 per cent of the native population died.  I understand there is some archaeological evidence that there was a similar population reduction in the Mediterranean some millenia ago.  If these precedents hold for us, then there is likely to be one hell of a stench.

We also need to get over our fear of death as so much energy and resources go into prolonging life.  Quite a few years ago The Economist reported that 80 per cent of health care spending is in the last six months of life.  I do not want to go into the 80 per cent and I hope that when my time comes I and those close to me will be able to accept it gracefully.

The other big challenge to protect  the environment deals with values many of which are a part of our committment to economic growth.

According to anthropologist James Suzman who recently published the book Affluence without Abundance, the most successful and long-lasting civilization was that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert.  These hunters and gatherers “worked” only ten to 15 hours a week.  As they relocated up to ten times a year they had little interest in material things and their society had high equality.  We cannot all go back to being hunters and gathers but we can choose some of their values and apply them to our daily lives.

If we really want to protect the environment then we should have fewer children, live in place, live a healthy lifestyle, have fewer and smaller toys, drive less, go easy on the travel and work as little as possible.  Recycling may make us feel we are doing something but it is not enough.

 

 

Brexit: the unilateral free trade option

 

As the British and the Europeans renegotiate the European Union following a British referendum a number of options are being considered.  What will not be considered is the option which would in the long term give the best standard of living – unilateral free trade.

For a long time this blogger has believed the best way to do free trade is for a country to do it on its own by removing all barriers to imports.  “Free trade” agreements are not free trade, they are negotiated trade.  To get the full benefits of the law of comparative advantage there must be no barriers to imports. There should be no import duties, no quotas and health and safety restrictions should be genuine rather than to restrict imports.

Unilateral free trade could easily be done by any country as each country has the right to control its imports.  This will leave them open to “dumping” or subsidies by trading partners.  If another country wants to subsidize our standard of living, then we should say, “Thank you very much”.

The case for free trade is based on the law of comparative advantage which says that two countries will be better off if they specialize in their most efficient production and trade even if one of the countries is more efficient in all trading items.  With our background we generally think of better off as meaning more economic growth but it could also mean more leisure time.  The law still applies.

There are two major problems with unilateral free traded – our  commitment to economic growth and the difficulty in making employment changes.

This blogger believes there will be little if any future economic growth because we have used up the easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  There are lots left on the surface of this planet but they are so difficult to extract they are mostly useless.  I also believe many people are aware of this economic uncertainty even if they do not understand what is happening.  This is probably behind the British vote for Brexit, the United States election of Donald Trump,  the increasing popularity of extreme left and right wing politicians and the rise of dictatorships around the world and a lot of other unpleasant developments.

The fear of losing one’s job is highly emotional and this is the second big problem with free trade.  Free trade means changes in production and this means some people will lose their jobs and have to find new employment.  The other side of this problem is that economic changes are a fact of life and will happen regardless of free trade.  We try to deal with changing market conditions with subsidies, import quotas, health and safety restrictions on imports and other trade restrictions. In the long term market forces usually win.

Under current economic conditions a lot of people are likely to lose their employment and a lot of people are going to suffer.  The challenge should be to facilitate the changes and reduce the suffering.  Most people are going to have to accept a lower standard of living.  This blogger believes the best way to adjust is to introduce a basic income plan.  For more discussion of this please see the rest of this weblog and my book Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy.

This guy believes the British and the Europeans would benefit if the British were to use the referendum as an opportunity for unilateral free trade.  I also would not want to be a part of the negotiating team as there is unlikely to be a consensus as to what degree of trade to negotiate.  There is so much fear, so many emotions and so many conflicting interests that it will be difficult to come up with something most people will be able to accept.  There is likely to be a lot of turmoil.

 

 

Solar energy – excitement and challenges

The most exciting, and challenging, economic news of recent days has been that in some parts of the world solar is now lower cost than other forms of energy and that is without subsidies. (One, two, three.) This is exciting because so much of what we call civilization is dependent upon cheap energy.  There are indications that the cost of solar energy will decrease even further and that it will become  available to most of us.

This is also challenging because of the economic changes which will have to be made including the writing off of a lot existing infrastructure.

We must start this discussion by noting that energy is only one input into economic growth.  A shortage of other minerals, agricultural land and over population may make a return to economic growth difficult.

A major problem in adapting to lower electricity costs will be the existing infrastructure. The price of an item is equal to the marginal cost of producing the last unit.  This means that if solar energy can be produced cheaper than other forms of electricity the producers of that energy will have to lower their prices or go out of business.  It may take time to work out but we can anticipate a lot of infrastructure will become obsolete.  Do not be surprised if there are demands for subsidies to protect firms from unfair competition.

The falling marginal cost may be a problem for the production of solar energy.  With fossil fuels we have been used to rising marginal costs which means the owners of cheaper oil have been reaping windfall profits as the price of oil has gone up.  This writer is not aware that much economic thought has been put into dealing with falling marginal costs on this scale but some people will have more expensive solar energy than others or will have to write off their initial investment.

Another interesting feature of solar energy is it is unlikely any corporation will get an exclusive license to use it.  With costs falling to the point where most people will be able afford their own solar collector(s) decision making power will be transferred to individuals.  No longer will bankers and governments be making decisions for us.

I am skeptical that cheap solar energy is going to mean a return to economic growth and the way our economy is currently organized requires growth for most of us to live in comfort.  Changing our economic organization will be far more difficult that introducing solar technology.

Why your savings and pensions are at risk

The fractional reserve way of creating money means a lot of people are at risk of losing all or part of their savings and pensions.

If there is too much money supply in the economy then we have inflation and people with savings or pensions lose some of their purchasing power and those who owe money benefit because they repay their loans with less purchasing power.  Now you know why governments and the people who speak on their behalf promote mild inflation.  This is at least unauthorized taxation if not theft.

pexels-photo-2105902If you have deflation, then people who are owed money win because they are repaid with more purchasing power than they loaned.  The borrowers lose because they have to repay with more purchasing power.

To be fair to everyone we need to manage the economy so that just the right amount of money is available at all times.  At a time when the economy is on a down trend, this is very important as too much money puts us in danger of hyperinflation.

Getting this amount right has long been a challenge to central banks although the common sense answer is fairly simple.  The money supply should vary with the quantity of goods and services we want to exchange and it should be flexible up and down.

The wrench in the simplicity is the fractional reserve way of creating money.  When banks make loans they must (or should) keep a fraction of the amount on reserve for when the depositor wants his/her money returned.  As the amount is only a fraction banks are at risk of a “run” if depositors lose faith.  And because of the fractional reserve there is a multiplier effect involved.  Does not this sound like a set up for a crisis?  The mechanics of this process are a little complex although I have always found it easy to understand. To figure it out I suggest you Google “fractional reserve” or look at my free e book Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy or look at the essay Going to Market on this weblog.

The other end of the wrench is  that interest is charged on the loans made by the banks.  Mainstream economists have given little or no thought to the consequences of this. Because all of our money is created by the making of loans, if all the outstanding debt were to be paid off at one time there would not be enough money to repay it all because of the interest.  The charging of interest on the debt/money means there is never enough money available to repay all outstanding debt. Inflation is built into the fractional reserve way of creating money.

The system works only so long as the economy and the money supply continues to grow.  An upset in either means crisis of which we have had many.

The relationship between money supply and economic output is expressed in a formula, MV=PQ, some times known as the quantity theory of money.  Money times the velocity at which it circulates in the economy is equal to a price index times the quantity of goods and services produced.

I get ticked off because this is frequently taken to mean there is a direct, proportional relationship between the money supply and the inflation rate or price level.   Can’t people see there are four variables in this formula?  Total output is an important part of this formula.  If it should happen to go down something needs to happen to another variable.

Our society has a strong commitment to economic growth and a need to keep it growing so that people will not suffer from unemployment.   Some desperate people are trying to stimulate growth by increasing the money supply. This may increase inflation but it will not lead to growth unless we can find inexpensive energy and mineral resources to support it.  I suspect the new American president has  his eye on parks and reserve lands to encourage more economic activity.  He will probably succeed in the short term to be followed by a major economic collapse.

This blogger thinks we need some major economic reforms, not only in our financial system but in our commitment to economic growth.  We need to minimize our production and exchange of goods and services so we are using fewer energy and mineral resources.

A lot  of people operate on faith in our financial system and ignore suggestions we need reform.  I think the risk is so great that prudent people will at least give some thought to these issues.  It is your savings and your pensions and your future that is at risk.

 

 

Please help promote this weblog

Please send the link to this post to your friends and social media.  Promoting a weblog can be difficult.  I get some referrals from LinkedIn.  I used to get quite a few from Reddit but I have been “shadow  banned” for linking to my own weblog.  Self promotion (and free speech?) are serious offenses on Reddit. I figure my strength is in the thinking that goes into the posts and I thank you for helping.  (r/economics   r/libertarian   r/economiccolapse  r/Degrowth )

Hiding from the economic crisis

Why are interest rates so low?  It’s a question which has apparently been occupying a couple of North America’s top economists but this blogger sees the discussion as a screen hiding some very important economic issues.such as the root cause of the economic crisis and values which will guide us in trying to  find a solution.

On the surface the answer is simple.  Interest rates are the price of money and are determined by supply and demand.  They are low  because that is where the two balance.  They appear low because we are used to high returns on our investments and are reluctant to give them up.  There is no reason why interest rates could not be zero and maybe they should be.

To understand the root cause of the economic crisis we need to go into a macro economics classroom and watch the lecturer draw his basic diagram on the blackboard.  It is in the shape of an”x” with one side representing the financial side of the economy and the other the real or physical side.   This is important.  As we measure the physical part of the economy in financial terms it is easy to forget the distinction and analyze economic problems only in financial terms.  We need to ask what is happening to the physical side of the economy because it could be that is where the problem is.

This blogger figures the problem is with the resource base.  There are lots of energy and mineral resources left on this planet but we have exploited the most easily accessible.   Those that are left take a lot of time and energy to extract and this is causing a lot of economic problems.  It could even force us into negative growth.  This is a much more serious problem than why interest rates are low.  It is also an extremely difficult problem because it challenges some deeply held beliefs and values.  It’s a lot easier to talk about why interest rates are low.

Some ideas about how to fix the economy are included in the essay “LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic crisis” on this weblog.  A major feature of that essay is a proposal to change the way in which we create  money.

The emotions surrounding money make it a such a difficult subject that few people understand the economics of money and banking. This is unfortunate as money is so essential to how we exchange goods and services.  I encourage you to take a look at the essay.

While I prefer to see low interest rates as a symptom rather than the problem here are  some observations.

Money should be considered a tool to facilitate exchange rather than as a commodity with a value of its own As the quantity of goods and services we want to exchange varies up and down  so does the amount of money supply we need,  If there is too much money there will be inflation and if there is too little money there will be deflation.   Some people believe there should be mild inflation but this reduces the value of savings and should be  considered theft.

Quantitative easing has been an attempt to stimulate economic activity by increasing the money supply.  It has resulted in a rising stock market but has done little for the real economy.  That has to be a sign of a serious problem which has not been identified.

The way in which we create money, known as fractional reserve banking, is a heavy-duty problem because it is based on loans on which interest must be paid.  If all debts had to be repaid at one time there would not be enough money in the economy.  It is a Ponzi scheme on a grand scale and it is no wonder we experience frequent financial crisis.  For more on this topic see these previous posts on this weblog.

I believe we are facing a serious economic problem in that it is not clear there can  be a return to economic growth.  Dealing with this will require some major changes in our way of life.  It is disappointing that two of our most well-known economists are protecting us from having to deal with this with a frivolous argument. It’s as if they are playing in the turkey poo on animal farm and producing gobbledygook.

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.

Independent contractors and falling living standards

This blogger disagrees with economist Robert Reich when he says the rise of “independent contractors” in the American labor force is a legal trend.  It is an economic trend in which incomes are trending down because of problems in the energy and resource base.

Our economy has recently been through some golden  years of prosperity which have come to an end, probably because we have used up the most easily accessible of the energy and mineral resources.  There are lots left but the difficulty of extracting them is reducing the potential for continued economic growth and maybe even going to force upon us some negative growth. 

One of the consequences is that living standards are falling – at least for some people.  As  wages are sticky and people protest when asked to take a cut in wages employers try to find other ways to accomplish the same thing.  One way is to contract out work and another is to assign the work to independent contractors.  The jobs get done at a lower cost to the employers and some workers have jobs even if at less income.   In some cases the work may be done by different employees. 

This is hardly a trend to make people happy.  If it were up to me everyone would have the same incomes, working conditions and benefits as most government employees.  But economic realities will not allow that.

If there has to be a reduction in living standards then it would be fairer to share it among most people.  One way to do this would be with a universal income scheme.

Pensions and dreams

Many people like to dream about the things they will do in retirement and count on their pensions and savings to make the dreams come true.  For lots of current seniors this has been true but younger people may not get beyond the dream.  All the uncertainties of the economic future come to the fore when one starts thinking about pensions.

One hears two major concerns about pensions:  most  people are not saving enough and too many pensions are based on unfunded liabilities.

The one certainty about retirement futures is that well-being and standard of living will depend upon the quantity of goods and services we are capable of producing and the number of people with whom those goods and services must be shared.  Inflation or bankruptcies could easily wipe out  pensions and savings. In any case an increasing population and people living longer into retirement will put pressure on pensions.

There are two ways we can try to ensure our futures into retirement – we can work our butts off in an attempt to return to economic growth or we can reduce our expectations so that we don’t need so need so many goods and services.  It is possible the second option will be forced upon us.  That may not be all bad.  This blogger knows from experience that canoe camping is a lot cheaper and more enjoyable than the large cruise ships..   I also have to recognize that camping would be a lot less fun if we had to share the lake with 2,000 people at a time.

Most  of us are subject to a lot of media hype about the importance of pensions and saving for retirement.  We should keep in mind that we are in for the long-term while the people selling investments are more interested in their next pay cheque.  What is good for them may not be good for their customers and by the time you find out you may not even remember their name.

Some people are worried about government pensions and see private investments as the answer.  I figure the whole financial system is at risk of either inflation or bankruptcy.

In planning for the future we have to evaluate the potential for a return to economic growth.  If one believes we are going to return to growth then it might  be okay to put a lot of effort into a pension.  .  Personally, I think the best long-term investment at this time is a market garden.

 

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.

The future of money: inflation, deflation or disappearance into thin air

The future of money has been getting a little attention lately.  It could go one of three ways – inflation, deflation or part of it could disappear into thin air.  Concerns about money probably reflect concerns and uncertainty about where the economy is going.  Frequently behind these concerns lurk people who want a fixed money supply such as gold or bit coin.

This blogger figures money should be defined as a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.  I do not like definitions that make it a store of wealth or a measure of value because these give money an intrinsic value which it does or should not have.  Money should only have value as a tool. 

One of the most important features of money should be the amount available  in the economy needs to be flexible.  It should be able go to up or down  with changes in the quantity of goods and services we want to exchange.  If the money supply is not flexible then as we change the quantity of goods and services then either prices must go up or down or the velocity, the rate at which money changes hands will change.  It is dangerous to assume there will be only growth.

Inflation happens when the money supply increases faster than the rate of economic growth and deflation happens when the money supply goes not keep up with the rate of growth.    Inflation is good for borrowers as the can repay their loans with money which has less real value.  This is one reason governments and their agents want to see mild inflation.  Deflation is good for lenders as they will be repaid with money which has more value.  The ideal should be price stability so nobody loses.

Our understanding of inflation and deflation has been distorted by the long period of economic growth we have just experienced. Most inflation has happened along with growth and most deflation has resulted from banking authorities trying to restrict the amount of money available.  This happened in the 1930s and todays central bankers have sworn to never again let that happen.

There is some evidence that our time of economic growth has terminated.  It is unclear how this will affect prices.  Quantitative easing which is an attempt to increase the money supply has not led to high inflation.  Past hyperinflations have occurred when governments have increased to money supply faster than the economy was capable of growing.  It appears the money created by quantitative easing has led to inflation in the financial markets rather than consumer markets.

Economists generally understand how fractional reserve banking works to increase the money supply but I am not aware of anyone who has thought out the opposite process.  Money that can be created out of thin air can just as easily disappear into thin air.

In fractional reserve banking banks are required to keep a portion of their deposits as reserves for protection against runs. The rest is loaned out and redeposited with the new deposits subject to the same fractional reserve.  The result is that a large proportion of our money supply is  somewhat precarious.  This blogger and many other people on the internet have explained the process.  Just search “fractional reserve banking.”

Central banks can add money to the system by purchasing financial instruments or by changing the reserve requirements.  The could also reduce the money supply by selling financial instruments or by changing the money supply although it is unlikely they will do either under current conditions.

Another way the money supply could be reduced is if the banks suffer large losses.  Any loans the banks have to write off will directly decrease their available reserves.  (The technical term is high powered money.)  This means they will have to decrease their outstanding loans with the same multiplier effect as the money supply was increased.  We will hear about it as a contraction of credit.

So if the banks experience unusually large losses there could be a drastic decrease in the money supply which could have dire consequences.  ( I have read that a number of Canadian and British banks are highly exposed to the energy industry with unsecured loans.)

If a large part of the money supply were to disappear into thin air in the short term a lot of economic activity would come to a screeching halt.  People have in the past used playing cards or candies as a substitute for money.  In the long term the level of activity would depend upon the physical resources available.

People who talk up monetary reform often want a return to a gold standard or facsimile (bit coin).  It is not clear that either of these would correct the problems inherent in the fractional reserve way of creating money.  Nor would they provide the flexibility that is needed in the total amount of money available.

We all think we know everything there is to know about money.  That is a part of what our parents teach us. However, it is a complex subject which few people understand and there are a lot of unknowns, especially if we have to deal with an extended period of low or negative growth.

Compassionate austerity to deal with the economic crisis

To cope with the economic crisis we need austerity with compassion.  Stimulus as a policy will likely make things worse more quickly and austerity as currently practiced is mean and hurting victims.  Those people voting for politicians urging austerity may regret their votes when they too get caught in the crisis.

Compassionate austerity would recognize we are dealing with events beyond our control and would therefore not blame the victims.  It would include some sort of income support for people caught in the crisis

How one wants to deal with the economic crisis depends upon how strongly one believes in economic growth.  If one believes this is just a temporary setback, then one probably wants either stimulus to keep things going or some austerity until the economy corrects itself and growth returns.  This blogger figures the crisis results from problems in the resource base and it is unlikely we will again see the golden  years of prosperity which we have experienced in recent decades.

If this is the case, then austerity is something which will be forced upon us and we should try to cope with it with as little human suffering as possible.

I figure the basic economic problem is that while we have lots of energy and mineral resources left in and on the surface of the planet we have used up the most easily accessible.  Those that are left take so much energy to extract it is becoming less feasible to do so.  Suppose that during the age of prosperity we were able to build an automobile with 1,000 units of energy and labour and suppose it now takes 2,000 units to build the same car.  Not only is this going to double the real cost of building a car it will probably limit the number of cars that can be built.  It will certainly limit the number of people who will be able to afford them.

If this is a correct analysis of the problem, then clearly we need to make some revolutionary changes in the way in which we organize ourselves to produce and exchange goods and services.  I predict there is little likelihood of the revolution starting until the economic crisis hits pensioners.  For the time being it is mostly young people who are hurting.

There is a need to rethink our commitment to economic growth and rearrange our economy so we take advantage of modern technology so that most of us can live comfortably without having a job.

What disturbs me about austerity is that the people who promote it have so little compassion and understanding for those who have been caught by the crisis.  Many of those who vote for politicians pushing austerity need to rethink their votes as it could be only a matter of time before they too will find their comfortable lifestyle being challenged,

Austerity with compassion should include some sort of income support.  This blogger would like to see  a guaranteed annual income scheme combined with changes in the way in which we create money.  However, the need is so great I will say we need anything that will provide everyone with a more or less equal share of the goods and services we are capable of producing.

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.

 

 

Some reasons economists don’t get it.

What is wrong with economics?  Through the years a lot of people, including the current group of students have recognized there are problems.  This blogger figures there are two types of problems –  problems with human nature and problems within economic theory and understanding.

Most of us most of the time think and act in our own short-term interests,  Some people won’t listen to things that contradict their interests.  This can be a problem for economists as their paychecks often depend upon telling business people and politicians what they want to hear.  It is likely some of the students demanding changes in the way economic is taught will have to come to terms with this.

The other human nature problem which interferes with economics is that some people like to exploit others – sometimes deliberately and sometimes because they believe it is their right.  Using money as a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services allows us to have economic relationships with strangers from many parts of the world..  It also makes it easier for some people to exploit others. I am currently reading The Big Short by Michael Lewis in which he details the people who foresaw the subprime mortgage bust and profited from it.  It’s sort of interesting to see the exploiters being conned although I  believe that for relationships to be satisfactory there needs to be a more or less equal two-way exchange.  Another interesting thing is that most of the players on either side came out of it rich.

Neither of these human nature problems is likely to be resolved by changing the economic curriculum or the way the subject is taught.

It may be that for economists to tell their employers what they want to hear the economists have to be blind to some realities.  Here are four examples.

One of the greatest of economic myths is that growth can continue forever.  Economists occasionally talk about scarce resources then assume that there never will be scarcity.  Yes, we still have lots of mineral and energy resources.  However we have used up the most easily accessible of them.  What’s left is difficult and takes lots of energy to extract. This is a diversion of energy from other uses.  From history we know that all previous civilizations have collapsed.  Some people talk as if we will be the exception.

The second unseen reality relates to free market competition.  The problem with competition is that the more competition the smaller the profits.  In large parts of our economy competition is restricted by government legislation and regulation.  Licenses, patents, copyright, tariffs all allow firms to make profits they wouldn’t get with full competition.  It also means consumers pay more than they would otherwise.  When we talk about a market economy we ignore how governments work to restrict competition.

Sometimes economists distinguish between the real economy and the financial economy.  It’s an important distinction and we lose some understanding when we forget it as we often do.  My favorite example is with pensions.  Most people plan their pensions in money terms.  But there are three things that can happen to one’s pension savings:  inflation, failure of the firms in which savings have been invested and a government mandated haircut.  For most of us our standard of living in retirement will depend upon the ratio of goods and services produced to the number of people making demands on those goods and services.  If we experience a major drop in production, it will not matter how much pension money one has.  It might be prudent to plan for retirement at least partially in terms of the physical economy. How about a large garden?

The complexities of money creation and the deep emotions associated with money make it the most misunderstood and problematic  aspect of economics.  A number of posts on this weblog have dealt with the problems of money.  I believe that in the fractional reserve method of creating money economists have ignored the fact that interest is charged on the money created.  This feature makes the fractional reserve money into a Ponzi scheme. This explains the regular financial crises our economy has experienced.  If more people understood how the banking system creates money and the problems, we would probably be demanding changes which would take away from the profits and powers of bankers. How many economists would even dare to think that?

There appear to be lots of problems within economics.  How we exchange goods and services and the relationships involved in these transactions are an important part of our lives. It may be that some people can  benefit if most of us don’t see these relationships clearly. However, I think we would all be happier if we did.

 

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.

The quantity theory of money and transforming economists into fairy godmothers

It could be that the quantity theory of money is controversial and often dismissed because it deals with two aspects of economics where we most want to deceive ourselves – money and economic growth.

When I  started to research and think about this post I quickly got so ticked off that I went downstairs to my lathe to transform a piece of firewood into a magic wand for one of my grandchildren.  (Abracadabra.  All economists will become fairy godmothers – in their next reincarnations.)

The theory states that MV=PQ  where M is the money supply, V is the velocity at which the money changes hands,  P is the price level and Q is the quantity of goods and services exchanged.  What gets me ticked off is that this is frequently taken to mean there is a direct, proportional relationship between the money supply and the inflation rate or price level.   Can’t people see there are four variables in this formula?

The value in this formula is in that it explains relationships and shows how the real or physical side of the economy connects to the financial.  It is difficult because there are problems with fractional reserve money and because some people believe (or need to believe) that economic growth will always continue.  I think these are two aspects of economics where some people have psychological problems accepting the truth.    It becomes even more difficult if one tries to use this formula in a computer model as the four variables are difficult if not impossible to measure.

To maintain the equality, if one variable goes up then one or more of the other variables must also change,  For example, if the money supply increases then velocity must go down and/or one or both of the price level or the quantity of goods and services produced must go up.  It could be that during  recent decades the money supply was increasing faster than Q was increasing. We saw the difference as inflation.

The way we create money is a  major problem.

The fractional reserve creation of money works only so long as more and more money is being created.  Bankers create money by making loans. The problem is the interest.  If all loans plus interest had to be repaid at one time there would not be enough money in the system.. This is similar to a Ponze scheme and works only so long as more and more money can be created.

This means there is constant upwards pressure on the M in the formula – until the money creation breaks down and the M goes down suddenly and either prices fall or the quantity of goods and services produced goes down or both.  When the United States was trying to stick to a gold standard there were frequent economic crises because there was not always enough gold to support the amount of economic activity for which there were human and material resources.  The gold discoveries of the 19th century contributed to prosperity because they added to the money supply.

The big problem on the other side of the equation is Q.  A lot of people believe or assume economic growth will continue forever.  I figure Q behaves as a fractal, that is with ups and downs and ups and downs within each up and down – something like the seashore.

Some of the things which drive Q are not likely to be steady.  Discoveries of energy and mineral resources are erratic;  agricultural  production can vary with the weather; and new technology comes in spurts.  I think Q is currently being restrained because we have used up the most easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  We have picked the low-hanging fruit and what is left is going to take a lot of energy to get.

As Q is a fractal its changes in direction are likely to throw the equation out of balance and force one or more of the other variables to adjust.

Prices appear to respond mostly to changes in M or Q.  Sometimes governments decide to try to control inflation with price controls. and this usually causes problems with the balance of the equation.  Inflation is to the advantage of borrowers and deflation is to the advantage of lenders.  To be fair to everyone we need price stability.   As governments are large borrowers it is natural for people concerned with government finances to favor inflation.  Probably the best way to price stability would be to find another way of creating money so that the total is flexible.  Then the money supply rather than prices could respond to changes in the quantity of goods and services produced.

To the best of my knowledge not much is known about velocity.  I understand that in the days of the gold standard people would hoard gold if they were worried about other forms of money.

To call the formula MV+PQ the quantity theory of money is probably a little misleading. It would be better to think of it as the connectivity formula.  As such I believe it is very valuable in understanding what is happening to the economy.

Perhaps if we had more fairy godmothers we would have  a better understanding of what is happening to us.

 

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.

Infinite economic growth and the best things in life are free

Please pass the salt.  Here’s an economist, Tim Worstall who writes in The Telegram, arguing that infinite economic growth is possible even though we live on a finite planet with finite resources.

His argument, as I understand it,  is that applying new technology to recycled resources will increase the value of those resources so that GDP can  go up forever.  It’s an argument which a lot of people will want to accept because empires or even livelihoods depend upon continued economic growth.

If we are going to talk about economic growth there are two questions that should be considered.  Is growth necessary or desirable?  Do we need to make changes in how our economy is organized to adjust to the impact of using up the most available of resources?  Some people build empires and amass riches thanks to economic growth.  Others, myself included, are not ambitious in that way  and question the need for economic growth.  I would prefer to do things other than work on the building of somebody else’s empire.  Our agricultural surplus is so great that we have to “work” very little to do our share to support ourselves.  The question is who decides how to use the surplus.  I would like to see our economy organized so that as much as possible each individual could decide how his share is to be used.

The argument is that applying new technology to recycled resources will allow infinite economic growth. The difficulty is that not all resources, especially energy, can be recycled and there is no certainty that there will always be new technology.  There are still tremendous oil reserves in the crust of this planet. However it is not clear how easy it will be to extract those reserves.  How many units of energy will it take to extract 100 units of energy?  If technology can bring the answer down to the point where a barrel of oil sells for $15 to 20,  then we might expect more  old-fashioned economic growth.

Worstall  defines economic growth as an increase in GDP which is the value at market prices of all final goods and services.   In this view the value of an item is determined by its market price which is determined by supply and demand.  I would like to make a distinction between price and value because somethings we value have a low price as their supply is plentiful.  (There’s and old song The Best Things in Life are Free.)  A walk in the forest usually involves only the cost of getting to the forest which depends upon where one lives.    There are lots of things we value which are not captured by GDP.  Some of us might like to see “growth” in these things.  It would be nice if we as individuals could make that decision rather than having an economist tell us what to do.

Economic growth is a complex issue.  There may be problems with the resource base and the most widely used definition excludes a lot of activities which a lot of people value highly.

The current economic crisis is affecting people around the world.  Many people believe that only economic growth will solve our problems.  This blogger figures that to minimize the human suffering resulting from economic problems it may be necessary to reorganize our economy.  Some suggestions are in the essay “LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic crisis” on this weblog.

He who pays the economist calls the tune

If one wonders why economists have had so much difficulty predicting and explaining the economic crisis it might be helpful to look at who pays their salaries. Isn’t there an old saying that he who pays the economist calls the tune?  As most economists work for large corporations, governments or universities (paid indirectly by governments) they have to answer ultimately to chief  executive officers or presidents/prime ministers.

The question then is what do these people want to hear?  Does the chief executive of a major bank want to hear that he is participating in a Ponzi scheme or does the president want to hear that we are going into a major recession and that his voters are going to have to accept a decreasing standard of living?

Probably not.  So economists tend to focus on things that will not be offensive to these people or that will help to support them.

Consider the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.  This popular book is very interesting but it doesn’t  touch on any of the big economic issues with which we are currently trying to deal.  People who have lost their jobs and homes to the crisis will not find much here to help them.  Nor will the book encourage them to become drug dealers. (Here is the Wikipedia entry on Freakonomics.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics )

Another example is this article ( http://www.economist.com/node/12851150 ) from The Economist, December 30, 2008.  This article lists eight up and coming economists and talks briefly about the work they are doing. None of them are doing research which will help us understand or cope with the current economic crisis.  Here are three quotes from this article which I think help make the point.

 

They share the same knack for finding ingenious ways to answer unlikely questions, often by plundering forgotten troves of data.

 

Mr Gabaix made a splash in 2006 when he concluded that the “excessive” pay of chief executives was not necessarily excessive. Compensation may have grown sixfold from 1980 to 2003 not because managers were six times greedier, but because the firms they ran were six times bigger.

 

What, then, unites these eight young stars and the discipline they may come to dominate? Economists still share a taste for the Greek alphabet: they like to provide formal, algebraic accounts of the behaviour they explain. And they pride themselves on the sophistication of their investigative methods. They are usually better at teasing confessions out of data than their rivals in other social sciences. What defines economics? Economics is what economists do—the best of them, anyway.

 

So long as the economy was growing it didn.t much matter what questions economists asked and most of their research assumed continued economic growth.  As a student I learned regression analysis with its upward sloping line.  It wasn’t until later that I learned about fractals with their ups and downs.  I speculate the people who sign economists’ pay cheques would not be much interested in economic projections based on fractals.

I believe most people who study economics want to make the world a better place.  Also we tend to think and act in our own short-term interests and for most people that is their pay cheque.  The economists I am criticizing probably believe they are helping make the world better – or would  be if only people would listen to them.  Who is to say one person is right rather than another when it comes to solving deep problems and shaping the future.  Sometimes, to others, our vision of the future is wishful thinking.

What then is the role of economists if not to make accurate forecasts and to solve major economic problems.  Shortly after starting my study of economics I decided economists were the theologians of the twentieth century.  Some of their debates are as relevent as the medieval debate over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

I have a theory that we need to believe the things we do are important and necessary.  Sometimes we need people to reinforce this belief.  As most of what we do involves the exploitation of resources we need to believe this is good.  As it becomes more difficult to extract the remaining resources it becomes even more important we have people to help reinforce our work ethic.  The theory is that this is the true role of economists.

An alien invasion or the consequences of stimulus

With austerity seemingly not working to resolve economic problems and the apparent success of Abenomics and recent announcements that there may be thousands of earth like planets,  it may be time to have a second look at Paul Krugman’s proposal for governments to start preparing for an alien invasion from outer space. On second thought,  the consequences of launching into a major stimulus program may be worse than the slim chance of an invasion.

As there are two sides to the economy, financial and real,  we should look at both of them.

On the real or physical side we need to look at two things – resources and labor reducing technology as the goal of stimulus would be economic growth and full employment.

For there to be economic growth there will need to be an increase in the quantity of goods and services we produce.  The limit on services may not  be clear but regardless of the service economy we all need physical things to survive.    The production of more goods will require more mineral and energy resources and that could be a problem.  There are lots of resources left in the earth’s crust but we have used up the most accessible and those that are left are difficult and require a lot of energy to extract.  That could be a limit on further economic growth.

So what would be the consequences of attempted stimulus on the resource base?  Probably more energy would be required leaving less for other things and probably we would bring forward the timing of a major economic collapse.

Another limit on full employment is labor reducing technology of which we use a lot.  Here I see two questions:  How is the freed up time to be used and who is to make that decision.  Personally I enjoy reading, thinking and writing this weblog and I enjoy wood turning.   I don’t want Paul Krugman telling me and others that we have to spend a lot of time preparing for an alien invasion.   We now have the technology that most people don’t need to spend most of their lives “working”.  I would like to see some sort of universal income scheme which would allow individuals to decide what they want to do with their time.

On the financial side of the economy stimulus means two potential problems – inflation or a financial crash.  A government stimulus program would be trying to increase the production of goods and services.  With limited potential for growth this would put upward pressure on prices.  With all the excess money supply which central banks have been pushing into the economy I wouldn’t want to rule out hyperinflation.

The other potential financial problem is another crash within the banking system.  The way we create money is a Ponzi scheme which has to crash from time to time.  If inflation doesn’t get us a crash will.

I fear that Krugman was only half-joking.  He wants governments to undertake a massive stimulus program and I fear that could bring forward a major economic collapse.

Austerity appears not to be working either and it is causing problems for lots of people, especially the young.  The challenge then is to find a third way and at this point I must refer you to the essay “LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic crisis” on this weblog.

Oh, oh.  Did I just see an armed flying saucer go by my window?

Can faith solve our economic problems or do we need to challenge economic theology?

Can our economic problems be solved with belief and faith?  If yes we should all increase our attendance at church or mosque or temple.  If no we may need to challenge some basic economic theology and those whose interests are supported by current economic beliefs.

I figure the basic economic problem is with energy and mineral resources.  We have used up the most easily accessible.  While there may be lots left in the earth’s crust their extraction is difficult and requires lots of energy.  This means there is less energy available for all the other things we are used to having and standards of living are falling, at least for some people.

Many of us find it difficult to accept that this is a problem.  We want to believe that economic growth can continue forever.  We have been indoctrinated with the work ethic and believe that our happiness depends upon having a job and earning our keep.  Unemployment causes a great deal of hardship

If the above theory is correct, then the problem is not one of returning to economic growth but one of adapting to a different situation.  This means questioning a lot of what we believe about economics.

At this point I should distinguish between what I would like to see happen and what I expect to happen.

I believe we should have a collective responsibility to ensure everyone has the opportunity for the same standard of living as most other people.  Some ideas about how to accomplish this are outlined in the essay “LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic crisis” on this weblog.

What I expect to see is a return to the type of social order which existed before the industrial revolution where most people lived at a subsistence level and worked to support a very few in obscene luxury.

In the meantime the debate  of austerity as opposed to stimulus continues.  Austerity is probably necessary but the way it is being carried out is taking us to a feudal type of society.  Stimulus will use up even more of the available resources and bring us even quicker to a feudal society.  Hyperinflation is also a possibility.

When I read various reasons for the economic crisis and the few suggestions for dealing with it I think of people drowning in the middle of the ocean and thrashing about hopelessly.

Let this time be not different

Please, let this time be not different.  Please let this recovery be the similar to all the previous recoveries.

I have just finished reading This time is different by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff.  They bring together statistical data on all the world’s known debt and banking crises and look for patterns that precede them.  Their title comes from people saying during each boom that there will not be another crisis because we now have knowledge and experience from previous crises and  “this time will be different.”

Following each crisis there has been recovery in which the economy has grown to a new high. For the sake of all the people who are suffering from the current crisis it would be good if this time is not different and we could have a full normal recovery.  It would be even better for the planet and our long-term well-being  if we could adapt our economy so that people would not suffer from zero or negative economic growth.

One of the things which is different for this recovery  is that the marginal cost of extracting energy, mineral and agriculture resources has increased.  We have used up the most easily available of these resources and those that are left take a lot more work to extract.  This is bound to limit the potential for further economic growth.  We should beware of believing economic growth can continue forever.

I think there is an element of truth in the Elliott Wave Theory which applies to economics as well as the stock market. This theory says ups and downs run in series of fives and after the fifth the overall trend reverses.  Within each up and down there are series within a series.  I don’t  know about the fives but I believe the economy is fractal in nature and that there can be major turning points.  We should not rule out the possibility that we have passed a major turning point and that for some time to come we will have a series of downs and ups with each down going even lower.

As I read this book I wondered how the crises impacted people’s lives.  How serious was the unemployment?  How did people cope with unemployment?  Who were the people who lost their savings from defaults or inflation and how did they cope?  Did some of the one percent find themselves joining the poor?

In the current crisis, the headlines indicate young people are being hit hard and are the lost generation.  Meanwhile the cruise ships are packed with older people planning their next cruise.

It could be that during an economic boom we have a psychological need for economists to be telling us the boom will not end in a crisis.  Then we can work hard to prepare for retirement and to provide short-term profits for people in the financial industry.   We want to hide from ourselves the possibility we will lose the benefits of our hard work to defaults, haircuts or inflation.

As I was reading about all the financial crises I was saying “why oh why oh why would anyone want to put effort into the financial industry when there is such a high probability we will lose a lot of our savings?”  But then I have never been much for ambition.

%d bloggers like this: