Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

The tumour on the economy



Financial services are mostly parasitic on the real economy since they produce nothing.

The main functions of a bank are
  • to provide cash handling and payment services
  • to hold deposits safely
  • to arrange credit
The first two are obvious. The third is to facilitate production eg in a simple rural economy the farmer needs to buy seeds and live, in reality on the previous year's production, until the crop is harvested and sold. This is why credit is needed, and it is extinguished at the end of the production cycle.

The main cost on this is an administrative one of setting up the credit. There is also a need to make provisions against possible default, but that is an insurance function. Not only is there no necessity to charge interest or insist on collate, the practice is positively dangerous, especially when land is accepted as collateral for the credit.

Banks should not act as moneylenders, nor should they give credit for anything other than to facilitate the physical process of production. This it is right for banks to give credit for the purchase of seeds, tools and for the payment of the the farmers' sustenance over the season. It is not right that banks should give credit for land purchase because that has added nothing to the overall productive power of the economy (the land was there from time immemorial, all that has happened through land purchase is that a release fee has been paid to a land owner to enable its use).

Surgery no answer
If these principles were followed, the financial services sector would be a small specialist profession. Anything more is a malignant tumour on the body of the economy. But surgery is no solution. The underlying cause of the disease must be dealt with.

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

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...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins. The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds. It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main l...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

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...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer