Compassionate economics

Are the words compassion and economics compatible?

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

“Do you still do this,?” I asked?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Advertisements

Good relationships and good economics

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Free trade; not trade wars or negotiated trade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence for a long-term economic decline

This blogger thinks the economy is into a long-term down trend. It could be that not everyone sees this; it may depend upon the color of hat you wear. If you are retired with a good defined benefit pension it may be more difficult to see a down trend than if you are a young person trying to find an unskilled job that pays enough to cover rent, food, entertainment and a little saving to get married and buy a house.

Some of the evidence relates to the resource base. There are lots of energy and mineral resources left on the planet. The problem is that we have used up the easiest accessible resources and what is left is difficult to extract and will take so much energy they are useless. Another type of evidence is geographic and long-term in nature. This includes famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration, state failure and climate change.

dog-3277416_1920One of the difficulties is that we are used to seeing the economy as a straight line going up. Economics students learn about regression analysis which takes a number of data points and calculates the best straight line that indicates their direction. Using the slope of this line one can project the trend into the future. It is assumed the trend is up.

Another approach about which I did not learn until after I had completed my formal study of economics is fractal analysis. Fractals are lines that go up and down with a series of ups an downs within each. Like a seashore. Fractal analysis tries to identify major turning points in the ups and downs. The mathematics is not well-known. It involves the concept of fractal dimension which can be calculated by the formula two minus the Hurst exponent. If economists used this approach it would be much easier to accept the possibility our economy is going into a long-term down trend and their forecasts would be more accurate but not always what most people want to hear.

What then is the evidence for the long-term future?

In economic theory changes in prices are signals to producers to increase or decrease production. Increasing prices also indicate a shortage of a good and we have been experiencing a lot high prices for some basic goods. It may be that we need more information about prices relative to each other. Maybe our economic data collection has been to support our views on economic growth and is not sufficient to give us a clear picture of relative prices.

In recent discussions about energy a lot has been said about peak oil and solar. Maybe we do not have to worry about oil shortages because the cost of solar has been coming down and will soon be able to replace oil. This may well happen and it may have an interesting effect on economic decision-making. We as individuals will be able to make the basic decisions about solar use in place of bankers who now decide what oil projects go ahead and who gets to do them. The down side of this is that if a lot of oil infrastructure becomes obsolete and has to be written off a lot of the money supply will disappear and the lack of money will cause a lot of suffering to a lot of people.

In spite of all the talk about a service economy we still need lots of minerals for food, shelter and transportation. High prices indicate we have used up the most easily available mineral resources. The future may depend upon recycling and here the picture is cloudy. Recycling takes a lot of energy and the high cost may force us to reduce our use of minerals. Water is another issue. There are parts of the world where water shortages are becoming a serious problem.

Another indication of a declining economy is the trend to tiny houses, shared accommodation, young people continuing to live with their parents and even homelessness. It used to be that non-union working people could expect to live in a detached house with a front and back garden.

Most of the evidence for a down economy identified in the first part of this post has to do with the availability of energy and mineral resources. There are also some long-term geographic trends which could also cause mankind some serious problems.

The guideline here comes from a book by historian Ian Morris called Why the West Rules – For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future.

Morris’s book is a good summary of the long-term history of the world. Using evidence from a number of disciplines he shows how geography has influenced the rise and decline of civilizations. His perspective is much longer than most of us are familiar with.

He identifies what he calls the five horsemen of the apocalypse – famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration, state failure and climate change and shows how these have combined to produce disastrous, centuries-long collapses and dark ages. Are we exempt from the consequences of these problems?

We are already familiar with these trends. The question is are they strong enough to cause us problems or are they gaining strength?  For me, a retired person living in Canada, they are mostly academic but for many people around the world they are very real and very serious.

Some people argue this planet is capable of providing enough food for the current population, especially if we reduce waste. Even so the situation is rather precarious and we should be paying a lot more attention to what is happening in agriculture. Monoculture, factory farming of animals and the use of pesticides could easily threaten our food supply.

The threat of epidemics is always with us and the more people are crowded onto this planet, the greater is the threat. We are lucky public health practitioners have been able to quickly control recent outbreaks.

Migration has been a big problem for Asia, Africa and Europe. It is also an enough of an issue for some Americans to want to build a fence and take children from their parents.

Climate change was a major issue until we realized how many plastic straws we are using. Stopping the use of plastic straws will be a lot easier than dealing with climate change but will not stop the changes from taking place. At least people will be doing something.

This blogger has found the concept of state failure difficult, fascinating and intriguing. It is a complex issue because justice is one of the most important functions of government. At the same time many people demand of government legislation that is exploitive because it restricts competition. This is a conflict of government responsibilities in which the exploiters tend to win. The balance between the two is by degrees and changes through time.

You will notice I said justice rather than law and order. I believe one of the indicators of state failure is that so many people, including The Economist and the Supreme Court of Canada, talk of law and order rather than justice. Law and order is easier to define and enforce. If some government were to pass legislation saying police are required to kill a thousand people at random each year, would we still be supporting law and order. The president of the United States has been quoted as encouraging police brutality and to me this sounds like encouraging them to kill at random. Maybe Trump is an indicator of American state failure.

There are lots of laws that are not just. Anything that tries to force the values, morals or religion of one group on everyone has to be unjust. There are lots of laws that are not written but which are enforced ruthlessly by the public, the media and the courts. For example, men are evil and any expression of male sexuality should be punished. Fathers are expected to walk away from their children without emotions. Men should not be emotional under any circumstances.

Governments like to reward their supporters and to purchase votes and/or support. It is easy to get governments to pass exploitive economic legislation and to get them to provide handouts to protect people from natural disasters and their own stupidity. A lot of government is supporting and encouraging special interests, often at the expense of everyone. Some people want minimum government but want their own interests protected,

As the economy goes more and more into decline it will be more and more difficult to provide handouts and this will be seen as state breakdown. Governments around the world are facing riots as fuel and food subsidies become difficult to maintain.

This conflict between justice and the exploitive demands of special interest may be pushing all governments into a state of failure.

In this post we have looked at a number of resource based and geographic indicators that the economy is on a down trend.

Here are some other indicators:

Unemployment

High public debt

The rise of radical left and radical right political movements

High interest rates

Non-performing loads held by banks

Falling standards of living – however one defines them

Expensive education

High crime rates

Crowded public transportation

Homeless people

People are losing confidence in their banks

Business people are will to exploit their customers for the sake of profit

Every time I read a news report at least one item supports the idea that the whole world is going into a long-term down trend. There are loads of problems with the resource base and if we go short we will not be able to sustain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed.

There are always positives and negatives. In terms of economic growth the negatives appear overwhelming. This guy has read about hunters and gatherers and believes it is possible for people to arrange their production of goods and services for long-term sustainability. It will require a major rethink of values. It will be a challenge.

 

 

 

 

This blogger thinks the economy is into a long-term down trend. It could be that not everyone sees this; it may depend upon the color of hat you wear. If you are retired with a good defined benefit pension it may be more difficult to see a downtrend than if you are a young person trying to find an unskilled job that pays enough to cover rent, food, entertainment and a little saving to get married and buy a house.

Some of the evidence relates to the resource base. There are lots of energy and mineral resources left on the planet. The problem is that we have used up the easiest accessible resources and what is left is difficult to extract and will take so much energy they are useless. Another type of evidence is geographic and long-term in nature. This includes famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration, state failure and climate change.

One of the difficulties is that we are used to seeing the economy as a straight line going up. Economics students learn about regression analysis which takes a number of data points and calculates the best straight line that indicates their direction. Using the slope of this line one can project the trend into the future. It is assumed the trend is up.

Another approach about which I did not learn until after I had completed my formal study of economics is fractal analysis. Fractals are lines that go up and down with a series of ups an downs within each. Like a seashore. Fractal analysis tries to identify major turning points in the ups and downs. The mathematics is not well-known. It involves the concept of fractal dimension which can be calculated by the formula two minus the Hurst exponent. If economists used this approach it would be much easier to accept the possibility our economy is going into a long-term down trend and their forecasts would be more accurate but not always what most people want to hear.

What then is the evidence for the long-term future?

In economic theory changes in prices are signals to producers to increase or decrease production. Increasing prices also indicate a shortage of a good and we have been experieincing a lot high prices for some basic goods. It may be that we need more informtation about prices relative to each other. Maybe our economimc data colllection has been to support our views on economic growth and is not sufficient to giive us a clear picture of relative prices.

In recent discussions about energy a lot has been said about peak oil and solar. Maybe we do not have to worry about oil shortages because the cost of solar has been coming down and will soon be able to replace oil. This may well happen and it may have an interesting effect on economic decision making. We as indiivuduals will be able to make the basic decisons about solar use in place of bankers who now decide what oil projects go ahead and who gets to do them. The down side of this is that if a lot of oil infrastructure becomes obsolete and has to be written off a lot of the money supply will disappear and the lack of money will cause a lot of suffering to a lot of people.

In spite of all the talk about a service economy we still need lots of minerals for food, shelter and transporttation. High prices indicate we have used up the most easily available mineral resources. The future may depend upon recycling and here the picture is cloudy. Recycling takes a lot of energy and the high cost may force us to reduce our use of minerals. Water is another issu. There are parts of the world where water shortages are becoming a serious problem.

Another indication of a decling economy is the trend to tiny houses, shared accommodation, young people continuing to live with their parents and even homelessness. It used to be that non-union working people could expect to live in a detached house with a front and back garden.

Most of the evidence for a down economy identified in the first part of this post has to do with the availability of energy and mineral resources. There are also some long-term geographic trends which could also cause mankind some serious problems.

The guideline here comes from a book by historian Ian Morris called Why the West Rules – For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future.

Morris’s book is a good summary of the long-term history of the world. Using evidence from a number of disciplines he shows how geography has influenced the rise and decline of civilizations. His perspective is much longer than most of us are familiar with.

He identifies what he calls the five horsemen of the apocalypse – famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration, state failure and climate change and shows how these have combined to produce disastrous, centuries-long collapses and dark ages. Are we exempt from the consequences of these problems?

We are already familiar with these trends. The question is are they strong enough to cause us problems or are they gaining strenth? For me, a retired person living in Canada, they are mostly academic but for many people around the world they are very real and very serious.

Some people argue this planet is capable of providing enough food for the current population, especially if we reduce waste. Even so the situation is rather precarious and we should be paying a lot more attention to what is happening in agriculture. Monoculture, factory farming of animals and the use of pesticides could easily threaten our food supply.

The threat of epidemics is always with us and the more people are crowded onto this planet, the greater is the threat. We are lucky public health practitioners have been able to quickly control recent outbreaks.

Migration has been a big problem for Asia, Africa and Europe. It is also an enough of an issue for some Americans to want to build a fence and take children from their parents.

Climate change was a major issue until we realized how many plastic straws we are using. Stopping the use of plastic straws will be a lot easier than dealing with climate change but will not stop the changes from taking place. At least people will be doing something.

This blogger has found the concept of state failure difficult, fascinating and intriguing. It is a complex issue because justice is one of the most important functions of government. At the same time many people demand of government legislation that is exploitive because it restricts competition. This is a conflict of governement responsibilities in which the exploiters tend to win. The balance between the two is by degrees and changes through time.

You will notice I said justice rather than law and order. I believe one of the indicators of state failure is that so many people, including The Economist and the Supreme Court of Canada, talk of law and order rather than justice. Law and order is easier to define and enforce. If some government were to pass legislation saying police are required to kill a thousand people at random each year, would we still be supporting law and order. The president of the United States has been quoted as encouraging police brutality and to me this sounds like encouraging them to kill at random. Maybe Trump is an indicator of American state failure.

There are lots of laws that are not just. Anything that tries to force the values, morals or religion of one group on everyone has to be unjust. There are lots of laws that are not written but which are enforced ruthlessly by the public, the media and the courts. For example, men are evil and any expression of male sexuality should be punished. Fathers are expected to walk away from their children without emotions. Men should not be emotional under any circumstances.

Governments like to reward their supporers and to purchase votes and/or support. It is easy to get govenrments to pass exploitive economic legislation and to get them to provide handouts to protect people from natural disasters and their own stupidity. A lot of government is supporting and encouraging special interests, often at the expense of everyone. Some people want minimum government but want their own interests protected,

As the economy goes more and more into decline it will be more and more difficult to provide handouts and this will be seen as state breakdown. Governments around the world are facing riots as fuel and food subidies become dificult to maintain.

This conflict between justice and the exploitive demands of special interest may pushing all governments into a state of failure.

In this post we have looked at a number of resource based and geographic indicators that the economy is on a down trend.

Here are some other indicators:

Unemployment

High public debt

The rise of radical left and radical right political movements

High interest rates

Non-performing loands held by banks

Falling standars of living – however one defines them

Expensive education

High crime rates

Crowded public transportation

Homeless people

People are losing confidence in their banks

Business people are will to exploit their customers for the sake of profit

Everytime I read a news report at least one item supports the idea that the whole world is going into a long-term down trend. There are loads of problems with the resource base and if we go short we will not be able to sustain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed.

There are always positives and negatives. In terms of economic growth the negatives appear overwhelming. This guy has read about hunters and gatherers and believes it is possible for people to arrange their production of goods and services for long-term sustainability. It will require a major rethink of values. It will be a challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The British Labour Party and economic decision making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Even more fake news

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me you ears;
I come to bury fake news, not to praise it.

Whenever you have war, whenever you have conflict, whenever you have disagreement the first casualty is the truth. This has been the case since the start of civilization but we are now more conscious of the issue since the American president started using the term “fake news”. Not only has he become a master of using it but he also claims others use it against him. He is not the first to distort the truth but he may be more blatant than his predecessors. His success is sickening.

It may be the challenge of fake news is to use the truth to overcome emotions.

police-clip-art-1194984609285255522police_man_ganson.svg.medA lot of us dislike being lied to and a lot of us dislike hearing the truth, especially if it is not what we want it to be. This provides opportunities for those people whose desire for power over people is stronger than their ethics.

Most politicians quickly learn to use distortions of the truth to avoid upsetting people. My experience is that municipal politicians are less likely to say untrue things than those who stand a chance of being elected at a provincial or national level. As a journalist I frequently voted for the candidate with the least chance of winning because they were the most honest.

When a politician is as blatant with distortions of the truth as is the current occupant of the White House it is tempting to hold him responsible. But there is a more serious problem in that a lot of people are believing his distortions. He is saying what a lot of people want to hear. When so many people want to hear and believe things which some of us believe are not true there must be a serious problem facing our society. Rather than criticizing the messenger we should be trying to identify and correct the problem.

In my days as a reporter I tried hard to be accurate and was sometimes in trouble for being too accurate. They mayor did not like being quoted as referring to the Queen of England as “Liz”. Most of my reporting was for small town newspapers.

An issue for me was the accuracy of what people said. A British Columbia cabinet minister said the gypsies from Quebec were sent to B.C. to encourage separatism. I did not believe it but I reported it and the editors wrote an editorial criticizing the minister who later went onto become the premier. I still feel guilty for my very small part in helping him become premier. I would not want to be covering the White House.

In our society court cases are the ultimate situations of conflict. Most witnesses in court cases take an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I never heard a lawyer take a similar oath. Frequently they try to hide the truth. In Hereford, England, the prosecutor in the magistrates court was a police inspector and was much admired for ensuring the magistrates knew anything in favor of the defendants. He once told us he kept quiet until he became an inspector. After that there were no more promotions.

Distorting the truth is an ancient activity. We know that because we have the word sophistry. On a day-to-day basis I hear lots of arguments which are good examples of the art, often from the female of the species. I figure most of the arguments presented by feminists are highly sophisticated. Google logical fallacies.

The Economist points out that some publications reflect the beliefs of their readers rather than their owners. This is because some owners are more interested in profits rather than the truth.

Maybe there is a market for fake news because we are all emotional people and we do not like things that will cause us suffering. With the economy on a down trend it is likely a lot of people are going to experience unemployment and suffering and maybe even hunger, There will be fertile ground for politicians who promise things they cannot deliver.

It is our responsibility to evaluate the truth of what other people tell us. A part of the evaluation should be asking what are the special interests of that person. Will they benefit by distorting what they say?

Most of us feel betrayed if we discover somebody has lied to us. Probably the best defense is a commitment to tell the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: