Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Economics is difficult to understand

As the economies of many countries in the world slide into serious economic difficulties, one might be excused for asking how this situation has been allowed to come about? It is not as if similar boom/bust events have never occurred in the past. Governments are advised by experts, the newspapers all employ teams of expert commentators, and throughout the world there are academics and other professionals who are supposed to have an understanding of how the economic system functions. Yet seemingly they have no better grasp of events than fortune-tellers, tarot card readers, and diviners of chicken's entrails. Are these experts mere charlatans? If not, what has gone wrong?

The economic process is in principle simple. Human labour is applied to natural resources to create products that people desire - food, clothing, shelter and artefacts that give pleasure. Very early in human history, those products were transported and exchanged, from places where there was a surplus to places where there were shortages. Very quickly, too, means were discovered for storing surpluses so that they were available at times of scarcity. These technologies also made it possible for people to produce at one time and consume at another - for example, when they were young and fit, so that they could enjoy the fruits of their labour when they were old and infirm.

That is, in essence, pretty much all there is to economics. All the rest is an overlay. For instance, if goods are going to be exchanged, than some medium of exchange is needed. For centuries, precious metals were used. And as the processes of production and exchange became more complex, there was a need for "credit", for example, to cover the cost of construction of a ship and the expenses of a voyage, which would not be repaid until the ship came home and the cargo was sold. The word "credit" comes from the Latin word credo, which means "I believe". The person granting the credit believes in the trustworthiness and competence of the recipient of the credit.

The system proved to have limitations and since the industrial revolution, money has been issued by governments in the form of paper notes.

So where are things going wrong? First, there is the land issue. LAND IS NOT WEALTH. But nobody can do anything without land to do it on. And the supply of land is fixed. Every site is unique. Added demand does not call forth an additional supply. The price can only go up, and if this is happening, land owners may well decide to hold their sites off the market and wait until they can get even more, thereby squeezing the supply further and pushing up prices. If this happens, the entire production process is throttled.

The second issue is moneylending at interest. The Old Testament condemns it. The Koran condemns it. The Catholic Church has condemned it. Repeatedly, as, for example, in the encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV in 1745. What does usury consist of? It is not usurious to charge for credit, for example, to cover the wages of those arranging the credit, and as an insurance for risk. Usury is lending money, these days usually created by the banks themselves, against the security of some collateral, usually land or real estate.

Third is the matter of paper money, which in practice has proved quite unsatisfactory as governments have tended to spend more than they collect in taxes, with the result that the quantity of money has increased at a faster rate than the quantity of goods and services available for purchase. Because money behaves in the same way as any other commodity, if there is a surplus, its value goes down, resulting in a general and all-round increase in prices which is described as "inflation". This is a swindle on people who have chosen to defer their consumption till later, as the value of their "savings" is eaten away. Those savings are, in principle, a debt from the rest of society to the savers, and the inflation is in effect telling the savers that the debt will no longer be honoured in full. This is the dishonesty of inflation.

All the other things that are discussed in the financial pages of the newspapers are structures that have evolved out of the system just described. Shares are merely certificates of ownership, mostly representing the value of the land owned by the company concerned. Futures are promises to purchase or sell at an agreed date. "Securities" are collections of debts, which have a value because they amount to a stream of income. But anyone heeding Pope Benedict XIV would not have touched them with a bargepole, thereby avoiding the troubles that have overtaken most of the banks. But if things are going persistently wrong, part of the reason must surely be the the experts have lost sight of the underlying physical processes whereby goods are produced and exchanged, and instead become over-concerned with the complex overlays.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...