Keith,
1. I have already stated on this list that "On another matter, I think I
may have made a mistake in reading a previous
email, construing "quantity" for "quality" or vice versa."
2. I said "To take another example -- b.e very clearly believes that
binary growth comes about through the wider distribution of productive,
full payout capital achieved through a simulfinancing of both supply and
demand
('simulfinancing' is an admirable Kelso word). Quite how the author
comes to believe that b.e. is not involved with supply I just cannot
imagine."
To which you replied, "I have read the critique carefully and am unable
to locate anything that lends support to your interpretation (above) of the
author's intent, either by direct statement or by inference from general
commentary."
You then asked me to explain my interpretation.
Well, perhaps you would like to explain this passage from the author--
"For binary economists, then, the key to economic growth is the
increasing of demand for consumer goods, a la Keynes, rather than the
increasing of the capital stock to allow greater production of consumer
goods at lower cost. Yet capital goods must be produced if the capacity to
produce consumer goods is to increase, and increases in the capital stock
are actually integral to Kelso's "general theory" plan for capital
dispersion and growth."
The passage quoted lectures binary economics for, allegedly, not
understanding that capital goods must be produced if the capacity to produce
consider goods is to increase.
The great clue as to why the author got himself into such a muddle
comes in the sentence directly after the passage quoted above. It says:-
"Somehow, binary economists have even managed to conquer the
capital/consumption tradeoff that has been with us from time immemorial"
That sentence in a nutshell explains why the Austrian (and
possiblypeople like Ryan) cannot understand binary economics . It is
patently impossible for him to understand a financing that finances both
production and consumption at the same time -- it's called "simulfinancing".
The Austrian, moreover, is quaintly old-fashioned (about 65 years out of
date -- see Harold Moulton in the 1930s) in his savings doctrine -- he does
not understand that financial savings are not necessary before investment is
made (although collateral may be necessary) since, today, money can be, and
is, created out of nothing. It is also a question today whether, in
practice, there is any need for physical savings since for many types of
investment, there are physical substitutes for things , or a need to pay a
higher price, rather than an absence of things.
Keith, the Austrian is opposed to wide capital ownership for all and,
all such people ultimately reveal themselves as selfish, narrow-minded --
and muddled.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] critique of binary economics
> Rodney,
>
> In the following commentary you make the following assertions about the
> critique:
>
> > To take an example -- b.e. is most certainly concerned with the quality
of
> > capital and for the author to say the opposite is the result of his not
> > wanting, deep down inside, to have wide capital ownership.
>
> > To take another example -- b.e very clearly believes that binary growth
> > comes about through the wider distribution of productive, full payout
> > capital achieved through a simulfinancing of both supply and demand
> > ('simulfinancing' is an admirable Kelso word). Quite how the author
> comes
> > to believe that b.e. is not involved with supply I just cannot imagine.
>
> I have read the critique carefully and am unable to locate anything that
> lends support to your interpretation (above) of the author's intent,
either
> by direct statement or by inference from general commentary.
>
> Can you explain how you came to these interpretations?
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rodney Shakespeare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Social Credit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] critique of binary economics
>
>
> > Dear Social Credit members,
> > I am invited to reply to a review of Binary Economics by an "Austrian".
> An=
> > d
> > in the word "Austrian" there is a big, big problem. Correct me if I'm
> > wrong, but I believe the the "Austrians" have little or no concept of
the
> > desirability of everybody in an economy having a considerable capital
> > ownership with full payout of earnings. The Austrians basically want to
> > have capital narrowly owned. Am I wrong? By "free market" they mean
"the
> > maintenance of the narrow ownership of capital".
> >
> > In complete contrast, by "true free market" binary economics means the
> > opposite and thus they describe the present system as "unfree marekt
> financ=
> > e
> > capitalism".
> >
> > It is therefore inevitable that, in meeting up with binary economics,
the
> > Austrians will make patent misapprehensions basically because their
> mindset=
> >
> > does not allow them to conceive of everybody owning productive capital.
> >
> > To take an example -- b.e. is most certainly concerned with the quality
of
> > capital and for the author to say the opposite is the result of his not
> > wanting, deep down inside, to have wide capital ownership. (Austrians
> HATE=
> >
> > ordinary people to have the economic independence that comes from the
> > ownership of productive capital.)
> >
> >
> > To take another example -- b.e very clearly believes that binary growth
> > comes about through the wider distribution of productive, full payout
> > capital achieved through a simulfinancing of both supply and demand
> > ('simulfinancing' is an admirable Kelso word). Quite how the author
> comes=
> >
> > to believe that b.e. is not involved with supply I just cannot imagine.
> >
> > I happen to be massively busy at the moment and do not have time for
> making=
> >
> > much comment but the author's thoughts on b.e and productivity are
> nonsense=
> >
> > precisely becasue b.e. is based on PRODUCTIVENESS -- a different concept
> > from 'productivity'. Again quite how the author came to get that wrong,
I
> > find it difficult to imagine. And b.e. does NOT say there has been no
> > increase in labour productiveness, only that there has been a bigger
> > increase in the productiveness of capital.
> >
> > On the independence of capital's contribution to wealth the author
should
> > read Chapter Five of Binary Economisc rather more carefully. On page
130
> > of the copy before me as I write, it is clearly explained that humans
are
> > independent producers, as is capital and they can work alone OR
co-operate
> > with other labour OR with capital. Similarly capital can work alone OR
> wit=
> > h
> > other capital OR with humans. It's in the middle of the page and cannot
> be=
> >
> > put clearer than that.
> >
> > The author then seems to assume that b.e thinks all jobs will disappear
> and=
> >
> > that some jobs are not hugely creative etc I cannot spend time
pointing
> > out all the errors of the author -- all because he does not want the
wide
> > ownership of productive capital -- but perhaps he would read 160 - 166
> wher=
> > e
> > invention and creation are simply stated (it is obvious if you think
about
> > it) as the work of labour. On these pages there is much reference to
> peopl=
> > e
> > building capital etc. Therefore saying "The binary economists have
failed
> t=
> > o
> > recognize the importance of labor and innovation in the development of
> > capital" is weird. On page 161 it is explained that the work of
invention
> > is highly valuable and must be adequately rewarded if more invention is
to
> > be forthcoming. The author's weakness in all this is that he is really
> > manifesting Marx's "congealed" labour theory.
> >
> > Quoting von Mises, the author then quickly gets into another muddle
> sayin=
> > g
> > that b.e. says that the "astute management" of capital is not labour.
Oh
> > really! He should read page 160 where the heading (in bold print)
spells
> > out that management, stewardship etc etc are all the work of labour, not
> of=
> >
> > capital.
> >
> > At this point, I give up making any more comment for a quick read of the
> > rest of the author's review demonstrates patent misapprehensions time
and
> > time again.. In all this sort of (allegedly fair) discussion of binary
> > economics, it all really gets down to one thing -- do you, or do you
not,
> > wish to have all members of the population having a substantial
ownership
> o=
> > f
> > productive capital paying out its full earnings?
> >
> > People like the author may wish to disagree with the binary analysis
> bu=
> > t
> > I ask them -- straight -- do they, or do they not genuinely wish to see
> > everybody owning capital? They will, of course, huff and bluff but the
> > truth is that they do NOT so wish and writing inaccurately about binary
> > economics will not change that.
> >
> > I would add that this Social Credit list (correct me if I'm wrong) has
> show=
> > n
> > remarkably little interest in addressing the huge rich-poor divisions in
> th=
> > e
> > world resulting from the narrow ownership of capital. Indeed, am I not
> > right in thinking that Social Credit has no proposals to address this
> issue=
> > ?
> >
> > However, I would add that, in a week or two, Social Crediters will be
able
> > to correct their omission by co-operating with others who understand the
> > importance of wide ownership yet, at the same time, are able to take on
> > board important aspects of Social Credit and other things as well.
The
> > website at www.globaljusticemovement.net is not yet ready but, with
luck,
> > should be in reasonablke condition in a week or so.
> >
> > Rodney Shakespeare.
> >
> > PS I will have a look at the second part of the author's writing
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William B. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:45 PM
> > Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] critique of binary economics
> >
> >
> > The following is approximately the first half of a
> > critique of binary economics from the "Austrian"
> > perspective.
> >
> > Rodney Shakespeare and his co-author Robert Ashford
> > are quoted frequently.
> >
> > I again invite Rodney to post a reply.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Fair Use Claimed
> >
> > Binary Economics: Paradigm Shift or Cluster of
> > Errors?
> > By Timothy Terrell
> > (Wofford College; [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> >
> > I. Introduction
> >
> > Binary economics, also called two-factor economics,
> > is a new approach to economic growth that places
> > emphasis upon the distribution of capital, rather
> > than the quantity of capital or the productivity of
> > labor. Its roots are found in the work of Louis
> > Kelso, originator of the Employee Stock Option Plan.
> > Regarded as a paradigm shift by its proponents,
> > binary economics maintains that capital is productive
> > independent of the labor input, and that most
> > economic growth occurs as a result of capital
> > accumulation, exclusive of increases in the knowledge
> > or skills of humans. As binary economists Robert
> > Ashford and Rodney Shakespeare explain,
> >
> > "[Binary analysis] says that while humans undoubtedly
> > make contribution to the growth, the capital assets
> > such as machines and technological processes are
> > making an even bigger, ever-increasing,
> > contribution...So, from a binary perspective, growth
> > is primarily a function of increasing capital
> > productiveness rather than increasing labor
> > productivity."1
> >
> > Those who rely exclusively on their labor input as a
> > means to earn income are therefore consigned to
> > increasing poverty, since labor productivity is
> > shrinking in importance relative to capital
> > productivity.
> >
> > Interestingly, binary economists assert that growth
> > is best promoted by spending on consumer goods, and
> > that investment in capital by existing capital owners
> > "sterilizes" the production of that additional
> > capital. If the typically wealthy capital owners have
> > a lower marginal propensity to consume (as the binary
> > economists argue) than the laboring poor, then
> > distributing capital more evenly would produce
> > greater spending and therefore growth.
> >
> > "Binary growth is a distribution-based growth that is
> > presently impeded by the prevailing pattern of
> > concentrated capital acquisition. Thus the binary
> > paradigm reveals a potent distributive relationship
> > between capital ownership and economic growth, a
> > growth which is not comprehended by conventional
> > economics and which is suppressed by conventional
> > economic practices and institutions."2
> >
> > Binary economists may be few but they are prolific
> > writers.3 Despite the inattention given to binary
> > economics by other schools of thought, some
> > criticisms of binary economics have appeared (e.g.,
> > Roth [1996]). Though binary economists are not
> > highly influential, they do have a following
> > (particularly among non-economists interested in
> > economics).
> >
> > In this paper I examine the basic assertions of
> > binary economics, and suggest that the proposed
> > paradigm shift is plagued with theoretical
> > difficulties. In the second section, the binary
> > concept of independent capital productivity is
> > discussed. In the third section, I discuss the binary
> > view of savings and consumption, and the implications
> > of Say's Law for binary economics. The fourth section
> > evaluates the binary economists' plan for capital
> > distribution. In the fifth section, I argue that
> > binary economics is fundamentally incompatible with a
> > free market economic system, despite binary
> > economists' declarations to the contrary. The sixth
> > section concludes the paper with an assessment of the
> > claims of binary economists as to the potency of
> > their new paradigm.
> >
> >
> > II. The Independence of Capital Productivity
> >
> > Binary economics relies heavily on the idea that
> > capital is "independently productive." The
> > productivity of labor is viewed as being independent
> > of the availability of capital. Additional capital,
> > therefore, is entirely responsible for the increase
> > in output that results from it. Thus, binary
> > economists argue that additional capital does not
> > increase the productivity of labor but "displaces"
> > it. Ashford writes,
> >
> > "...assume that in a pre-tool age, a person could dig
> > a hole in four hours by hand. After the invention of
> > a shovel, she can dig the same hole in one hour...In
> > binary terms, the productiveness has changed from
> > 100% labor...to 25% labor and 75% capital...the
> > worker contributes only one-fourth as much input, so
> > her labor productiveness...has been reduced to only
> > one-fourth of its former value.=B0
> >
> > Because binary economists fail to recognize that
> > labor productivity has increased with additional
> > capital, and insist that gains in productivity have
> > accrued solely to capital owners, they argue that the
> > only way for laborers to reliably and consistently
> > increase their income is to acquire capital as
> > owners. If wages are related to the value of the
> > marginal product of labor, merely to use another's
> > capital as an employee would not increase income.
> >
> > As the production of goods and services changes from
> > labor intensive to capital intensive, it is clear
> > that the way in which every household participates in
> > production and earns income must similarly change
> > from labor to capital intensive. The workability of
> > the economy--the continued democratization of its
> > economic power and the continuous economic autonomy
> > of its consumers--requires that capital ownership of
> > undercapitalized consumers, be progressively
> > enlarged. This is the only alternative to income
> > redistribution for providing consumer demand.
> >
> > Roth (1996) has effectively pointed out some of the
> > salient problems with this view of productivity.6
> > Referring to Ashford's hole digger example, Roth
> > correctly points out that someone with human capital
> > had to invent the shovel before it could be used, so
> > the presence of the shovel is not independent of
> > human capital. Also, Roth notes the presumption that
> > the hole digger has no role in the "productiveness"
> > of the shovel. Yet, absent the acquisition of the
> > requisite knowledge-human capital-the hole digger
> > could not use the shovel. Moreover, if the hole
> > digger did not use the shovel, its "productiveness"
> > would be zero. The labor and the capital together
> > produce far more than the two factors could produce
> > separately. Thus, it is not at all clear that
> > "capital productiveness" replaces "labor
> > productiveness." It seems clear that the stocks of
> > human and nonhuman capital are-even in this
> > simplified example-mutually interdependent; that the
> > use of the shovel increases the value of the hole
> > digger's human capital; and that use of the shovel by
> > the hole digger enhances the shovel's value.'
> >
> > The binary economists have failed to recognize the
> > importance of labor and innovation in the development
> > of capital.
> >
> > What will happen to most workers as ever more work is
> > done by robots, computers and other forms of capital?
> > ...Unfree market theorists allege that it does not
> > matter if capital assets substitute for labor in the
> > productive process because, in some unspecified way,
> > service and other jobs will increase and everyone
> > will benefit. However, most of those service jobs are
> > hardly likely to pay good wages (assuming there will
> > be sufficient jobs).'
> >
> > This entirely ignores those jobs that are necessary
> > to make capital, not consumer goods. While some labor
> > might be replaced by a machine, new opportunities for
> > labor will appear in the creation of that capital
> > equipment.
> >
> > It is often said that the skills required to enable
> > workers to use modern technology are higher skills
> > that command higher competitive prices simply because
> > a longer formal education is required to qualify such
> > persons for these skills. These alleged "higher"
> > skills are really only different skills and generally
> > involve less overall knowledge, less effort, less
> > risk, and less learning time than the skills they
> > displaced. For example, the modern jet pilot requires
> > less skill than the original bush pilot, even though
> > he navigates with far more sophisticated and
> > expensive capital instruments. A modern production
> > line worker requires vastly less skill than the
> > craftsman who preceded him in the marketplace; he may
> > be needed only to check the behavior of robots. The
> > function of human intellect in the economic world is
> > to push the burden of production off labor and onto
> > capital workers with their machines, that is, to
> > "save work."9
> >
> > What of the value of the innovative labor that
> > produced the jet engine, the satellite navigation
> > system, or the robots? The operators may not need
> > more skill, but the inventors are exhibiting quite a
> > bit of skill.
> >
> > "Capital Workers"
> >
> > Binary economists have developed the term "capital
> > worker" to describe someone who manages, or
> > allocates, capital to its most valuable uses. Kelso &
> > Kelso (1986) define a capital worker as "One who
> > engages in economic production and earns income
> > through his or her privately owned capital. A capital
> > worker is not generally required to be personally
> > present at the scene of production, although astute
> > management of the ownership interest in capital is
> > constantly required."10 How is this different from
> > someone described as a labor worker: "An individual
> > who engages in economic production and earns income
> > by employing his or her physical and mental
> > abilities?"11 Of course, "astute management of the
> > ownership interest in capital" would be impossible
> > without employing "physical and mental abilities." As
> > Ludwig von Mises wrote,
> >
> > "[C]apital or capital goods [do not have] in
> > themselves the power to raise the productivity of
> > natural resources and of human labor. Only if the
> > fruits of saving are wisely employed or invested, do
> > they increase the output per unit of the input of
> > natural resources and of labor. If this is not the
> > case, they are dissipated or wasted."12
> >
> > Thus, the distinction between the labor worker and
> > the capital worker, which is critical to binary
> > economics, is not at all clear. Binary economists
> > roll the "astute management" of capital into their
> > concept of "ownership" and do not consider it to be
> > labor at all. Ashford and Shakespeare state that
> > people "can ...be productive merely by owning
> > capital."13 And, "...from the binary perspective, the
> > whole point of private property in capital is to
> > enable people to earn without personally laboring"'=B0
> > (emphasis in original). Perhaps the absence of
> > physical labor might be considered a distinguishing
> > characteristic of a "labor worker." Yet even a person
> > who sits in a chair trading stocks is laboring
> > physically, if only to communicate by voice or
> > keystrokes. To base the definition on the degree of
> > physical exertion required would miss the point of
> > the distinction.
> >
> > As we have seen, to be a successful capital worker
> > requires labor in the form of insight and skill. Like
> > physical abilities, insight and skill are not
> > uniformly distributed across the population, and that
> > is why capital is not uniformly distributed across
> > the population. Not everyone is well-qualified to be
> > a "capital worker." Yet binary economists perceive a
> > great injustice in the failure of market economies to
> > distribute capital evenly.
> >
> > Independent Productivity in Nature
> >
> > Binary economists frequently allege that there are
> > many examples of independently productive nonhuman
> > factors. In an example similar to the hole-digging
> > example above, Ashford and Shakespeare write,
> >
> > "A man carries a heavy sack on his back for a mile
> > and is exhausted. But with the help of a donkey, five
> > sacks can be carried twice as far in half the time,
> > leaving the man with enough energy to go dancing.
> > >From the conventional viewpoint, human productivity
> > has increased by a massive 2000%.
> >
> > "However, from the binary viewpoint, the great
> > increase in per-capita output is not caused by an
> > increase in human productivity. Rather it is caused
> > by the fact that the non human factor (the donkey) is
> > doing most, if not all, of the extra work. Indeed,
> > the man is doing less work by employing the donkey
> > rather than doing the carrying himself. The
> > productiveness of the donkey has both replaced and
> > vastly supplemented the former labor productiveness
> > of the man so that the donkey is doing approximately
> > nineteen times as much work."15
> >
> > A donkey is part of nature, and in its state of
> > nature should be considered a natural resource rather
> > than nonhuman capital. Humans together with only
> > natural resources will accomplish have a very low
> > standard of living indeed Capital is necessary to
> > have economic growth, and for a donkey to be
> > considered capital instead of a natural resource, it
> > must be "modified" in some way. Certainly, a donkey
> > will move around independently of any action taken by
> > humans. Yet it is still necessary for a human to
> > alter the donkey from its natural state to make it
> > useful for doing work. It must be domesticated,
> > fenced in, and guided about for any cargo
> > transportation to be accomplished. Humans thus
> > convert, through their labor, a natural resource to
> > cap ital and c ontr ibute to the productivity of that
> > capital.
> >
> > Labor's Income Share
> >
> > Binary economists confront serious problems in
> > attempting to determine the shares of income that can
> > be attributed to the different inputs to production.
> > In discussing similar attempts by the Marxists, Mises
> > criticized "the illusion that it is possible to
> > determine the shares that each of the various
> > complementary factors of production has physically
> > contributed to the turning out of the product."16
> >
> > If one cuts a sheet of paper with scissors, it is
> > impossible to ascertain quotas of the outcome to the
> > scissors (or to each of the two blades) and to the
> > man who handled them. To manufacture a car one needs
> > various machines and tools, various raw materials,
> > the labor of various manual workers and, first of
> > all, the plan of a designer. But nobody can dec ide
> > what quota of the finished car is to be physically
> > ascribed to each of the various factors the
> > cooperation of which was required for the production
> > of the car."
> >
> > Binary economists must also deal with the obvious
> > fact of the increase in real wages over the last
> > several centuries, that has coincided with the
> > increase in capital. Roth presents data indicating
> > that human income's share of aggregate personal
> > income has been fairly stable over several decades.
> > Furthermore, contrary to the binary economists'
> > claims that only existing capital owners have been
> > able to acquire new capital, Roth shows that capital
> > asset ownership has increased consistently with the
> > aging of the workforce, indicating that the workforce
> > has not had any trouble adding new capital owners."
> >
> > Roth concludes that there is "no unambiguous,
> > `scientifically correct' way to determine the effect
> > of changes in the stock of nonhuman capital on human
> > capital's income share (or vice versa). "19 Even the
> > binary economists recognize this difficulty:
> > "...there is great dispute...as to how to measure and
> > understand the separate inputs of capital and labor.
> > "20 If the increase is not linked to the increased
> > productivity of labor (made possible with additional
> > capital and improved technology), then it must be
> > artificial. Kelso and Kelso write,
> >
> > "[Technological] advance does not generally make
> > labor, as such, more productive. In fact, the
> > opposite is true. As capital work supersedes labor
> > work, the demand for labor work diminishes, and the
> > value of labor tends to fall. Free-market forces no
> > longer establish the "value" of labor. Instead, the
> > price of labor is artificially elevated by government
> > through minimum wage legislation, overtime laws, and
> > collective bargaining legislation or by government
> > employment and government subsidization of private
> > employment sole ly to increase consumer income."21
> >
> > In addition, binary economists cite labor's
> > decreasing productiveness as the primary reason for
> > poverty and state redistribution programs.22 "The
> > myth of the `rising productivity' of labor is used to
> > conceal the increasing productiveness of capital and
> > the decreasing productiveness of labor, and to
> > disguise income redistribution by making it seem
> > morally acceptable."23
> >
> > III. Binary Economics on Savings and Consumption
> >
> > Binary economists tend to see savings in the
> > Keynesian sense, as detrimental to economic growth.
> > In an remarkable disconnect in their system, binary
> > economists fail to see the link between savings and
> > the availability of funds to finance capital
> > acquisition. Thus, the borrowing that they see as key
> > to dispersed capital acquisition must occur without
> > anyone having to postpone consumption and make those
> > funds available. Kelso and Kelso (1986) write, "The
> > business genius tightens his belt only in the first
> > stage of his quest for real capital riches. Not
> > thrift but his ability to finance capital acquisition
> > out of the wages of his capital is the secret of
> > almost all of his impressive fortune."24 Ashford and
> > Shakespeare say that "the patience and abstinence of
> > the owner who may invest or consume" is not needed
> > for "efficient capital acquisition."25 This contrasts
> > sharply with Mises's explanation of capital
> > accumulation and of the source of the "impressive
> > fortune" of the "business genius":
> >
> > "The accumulation of new capital, the maintenance of
> > previously accumulated capital and the utilization of
> > capital for raising the productivity of human effort
> > are the fruits of purposive human action. They are
> > the outcome of the conduct of thrifty people who save
> > and abstain from dissaving, viz., the capitalists who
> > earn interest; and of people who succeed in utilizing
> > the capital available for the best possible
> > satisfaction of the needs of the consumers, viz., the
> > entrepreneurs who earn profit."26
> >
> > "Sterile" Savings
> >
> > The Kelsos see savings as a leakage out of the
> > economy and therefore "sterile."
> >
> > "A market economy is essentially a double-entry
> > bookkeeping system based on the fact that each
> > household in market economies has a double role of
> > consumer and producer. Costs paid for production on
> > one side of the ledger become personal incomes earned
> > for consumption on the other. The economy itself is a
> > vital organism engaged primarily in the current
> > production of consumer goods and services for current
> > consumption. Any sustained accumulation of capital-
> > produced income in excess of that actually used to
> > pay for things consumed will inevitably be channeled
> > into the ownership of progressively greater
> > capitalearning power. At the time when such capital-
> > earning power exceeds the demands of a household's
> > consumer lifestyle, it becomes sterilized and
> > unusable, so far as the economy is concerned; it also
> > actively violates the common law of individual
> > property rights?"27
> >
> > Because investing in more capital does not contribute
> > to growth (in the binary view), any use of income for
> > non-consumptive purposes slows the economy. To some
> > binary economists, apparently, capital is useless
> > ("morbid," in their terms) if the owner decides to
> > reinvest any income from it. Kelso and Kelso make
> > this plain: "The earnings of morbid capital-capital
> > in excess of that which can or will be used to
> > support the consumer lifestyles of the ownersare
> > altogether diverted out of the market economy for
> > useful goods and services."28 Thus, anyone who owns
> > such capital-who fails to spend every dollar earned
> > through capital ownership and management, is being
> > irresponsible and selfish: "A participant in
> > production who, through his or her superproductive
> > power (normally excess capital accumulation), earns
> > more income than he chooses to devote to consumption,
> > necessarily beggars his neighbors."29 And,
> > "...[morbid capital] beggars others by depriving them
> > of the economic opportunity to increase their
> > earnings as capital workers."30
> >
> > To some binary economists, there is a ceiling on
> > consumer "needs," above which a person will choose
> > only to invest in "morbid capital." Ashford and
> > Shakespeare go so far as to say that existing capital
> > owners "generally have little or no unsatisfied
> > consumer needs and wants."31 Of a household earning
> > $10 million a year on "capital-earned income," Kelso
> > and Kelso write,
> >
> > "The family may live luxuriously indeed on am odest
> > part of these earnings, spending $1 million or
> > possibly as much as $5 million. But the rest will m
> > ost certainly be invested in the most productive
> > capital assets (and tax shelters) that skilled
> > advisers can find. This will further increase the
> > owner's excess capital income rather than channel it
> > back into the system as payment for consumer goods
> > and services. Such excess income has thus been
> > sterilized with regard to the production-consumption
> > market. It can only be used to acquire more producer
> > goods." 32
> >
> > For binary economists, then, the key to economic
> > growth is the increasing of demand for consumer
> > goods, a la Keynes, rather than the increasing of the
> > capital stock to allow greater production of consumer
> > goods at lower cost. Yet capital goods must be
> > produced if the capacity to produce consumer goods is
> > to increase, and increases in the capital stock are
> > actually integral to Kelso's "general theory" plan
> > for capital dispersion and growth.
> >
> > Somehow, binary economists have even managed to
> > conquer the capital/consumption tradeoff that has
> > been with us from time immemorial.
> >
> > "In a mature capitalist democracy, labor-earned
> > income ordinarily would not be needed or used for
> > capital asset acquisition. Commercially insured
> > capital credit would be used instead. The costs of a
> > capital asset would be defrayed in the financing
> > process before its income yield would become
> > available for personal use. Thus the economy would no
> > longer have to choose between current consumption and
> > capital investmentan artificial necessity that has
> > long depressed market demand in Western industrial
> > societies."33
> >
> > Again, it seems that binary economics is missing a
> > critical link between "capital credit" and the
> > postponing of consumption. For someone to borrow for
> > the purpose of acquiring capital, someone else must
> > ultimately reduce current consumption. Through money
> > creation by a central bank, that link can be
> > temporarily stretched, but only at the cost of a
> > subsequent recession. As Section IV indicates, this
> > money creation is in fact the means by which binary
> > economists hope to put their plans into effect.
> >
> > Ashford and Shakespeare go on to confuse the reason
> > for the gains that occur from choosing capital
> > accumulation over current consumption. "[I]n the
> > conventional analysis, the rich are being productive
> > by waiting. But, in the binary analysis, the rich are
> > being productive by owning, not waiting."34 Capital
> > owners do not prosper because they own, or because
> > they wait. In addition to postponing consumption,
> > they must do something requiring considerable skill--
> > evaluate alternative uses for the unconsumed
> > resources they own and choose the most productive.
> > This task of evaluation maybe contracted out to
> > professionals, but the risk belongs to the capital
> > owner alone. Also, capital owners still must evaluate
> > the professionals they put in charge of allocating
> > their capital.
> >
> > Binary Economics and Say's Law
> >
> > Of course, binary economists take issue with Say's
> > Law.35 In their view, all income earned (through any
> > means) must be respent on consumption if the economy
> > is to grow. "Sustained economic prosperity in a
> > market economy requires that earners and their
> > dependents devote currently earned income to current
> > consumption. 06 The output of the economy will be
> > purchased in full only through consumption.37
> > Production goods, one must suppose, do not count.
> > Strangely, the presence of government redistribution
> > is put forward as evidence of the impossibility of
> > Say's Law:
> >
> > In assuming that employment-generated purchasing
> > power will be adequate, both from the consumer's
> > standpoint and the economy's, conventional finance
> > makes a disastrous error and compounds it by ignoring
> > the massive contradictory evidence. If consumers
> > could afford to buy the economy's output from their
> > employment earningss, income redistribution through
> > government-levied taxes would be unnecessary. People
> > would not need welfare, open or concealed."
> >
> > Supposedly, even consumer borrowing proves that the
> > economy's output cannot be entirely purchased by
> > "labor workers," so that economic growth is stunted
> > unless their purchasing power can be increased (by
> > distributing capital ownership to those who will
> > spend it on consumer goods). In the absence of this
> > purchasing power, consumers must borrow. In a world
> > in which everyone is earning "adequate" income
> > through labor and capital earnings, welfare and
> > consumer credit both would disappear. In a binary
> > economy, Kelso and Kelso argue, "[c]onsumer credit
> > would not be desired, or even tolerated. No one
> > derives consumer satisfaction by paying interest to
> > others."39
> >
> > This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of
> > interest. Interest itself may not produce consumer
> > satisfaction, but borrowers pay interest to persuade
> > others to postpone consumption--so that the borrowers
> > may enjoy the goods now. As long as people prefer
> > goods and services now to goods and services in the
> > future, there will be interest. Yet binary economists
> > contend that consumption is unrelated to the interest
> > rate:
> >
> > "...the conventional theory says that people will
> > defer m ore ( or less) from current personal
> > consumption depending on the anticipated rewards for
> > deferring consumption (or "waiting")."40
> >
> > "...this prospect of deferred income (which
> > determines the value of the capital) is itself seen
> > as a function of consumer demand for the output of
> > the capital which is in turn based on the individual
> > worker's decision to work for consumer goods at the
> > prevailing wage or remain idle. Thus, in the
> > conventional analysis, the value of all goods and
> > services (both consumer and capital) is basically a
> > function of the work decision, which is in turn a
> > function of human productivity."41
> >
> > It is apparent from this that the binary economists'
> > misunderstanding of the interest rate is related in
> > some way to a misapprehension of value theory. The
> > Austrian understanding of value, at least, does not
> > fit the description provided here. It is true that
> > the demand for capital is derived from the value
> > placed on the consumer goods that the capital
> > produces. The demand for labor, as well, comes from
> > the value placed on the consumer goods that the labor
> > produces. But, to Austrian economists, the value of
> > consumer goods is related to the subjective
> > assessment by individual consumers of the ability of
> > each good to satisfy personal goals.
> >
> > It is true that wages, and thus some part of the work
> > decision, are based on productivity. But the
> > productivity of labor is based partly on the
> > availability of capital, and is not independent of
> > capital (as pointed out above). The work decision is
> > based on the opportunity cost of one's time-which may
> > include the value attached to leisure time. To argue
> > that the value of consumer goods depends on the work
> > decision would be to reason in a circle. People
> > choose to earn wages (versus remaining idle) to pay
> > prices for consumer goods-prices which are dependent
> > on the amount of wage-earning (versus remaining
> > idle)? This is not the Austrian perspective, nor can
> > it be reasonably called "conventional."
> >
> > IV. The "General Theory" Diagram
> >
> > Binary economists have devoted a great deal of effort
> > to developing a plan for dispersing capital
> > ownership. This plan is intended to allow the poor to
> > obtain capital quickly by setting up "constituency
> > trusts," which would hold capital for constituents in
> > the manner of an employee stock ownership plan. Part
> > of the plan would necessarily include restrictions on
> > "cashing out" funds held in trust, so that the
> > laboring, constituents would not convert the invested
> > funds to current income.
> >
> > Louis Kelso explained that these trusts would be
> > funded by loans from commercial lenders, which would
> > in turn obtain the funds from the central bank
> > through discount lending. The loans would be insured
> > by a commercial capital credit insurer, which would
> > obtain reinsurance from a tax-supported public
> > corporation. Kelso planned for the repayments on the
> > loans to be made from the trust's initial earnings on
> > the capital purchased (see Figure 1).
> >
> > The binary economists' plan would create a massive
> > credit bubble. When the central bank lends money to
> > the commercial lenders via the discount window, it
> > would temporarily increase the money supply. The bank
> > loans to the trusts would be used to purchase new
> > stock from corporations, whereupon the corporations
> > would purchase capital assets to expand. What binary
> > economics overlooks is that in order to acquire these
> > capital assets, the firm must entice people to give
> > up current consumption of goods and services in order
> > that resources may be devoted to production of
> > capital goods. However, money creation by the central
> > bank does not alter time preferences. People have the
> > same internal interest rate, dictated by the
> > intensity with which they prefer present goods to
> > future goods. When capital goods are bid up in price
> > through bidding from the constituency trusts,
> > production shifts to capital goods instead of goods
> > for immediate consumption.
> >
> > Figure 1: "General Theory diagram"
> >
> > [insert diagram]
> >
> > >From this point on the inflation caused by the
> > central bank begins to work its way through the rest
> > of the economy. Workers employed in the production of
> > capital goods have not become more willing to put off
> > consumption, so as their higher wages are used to
> > purchase consumer goods, the prices of consumer goods
> > begin to increase. As consumer goods prices rise,
> > workers in the capital goods industries require
> > higher nominal wages to compensate for the decline in
> > the purchasing power of their wages. The wage
> > increases reduce the profits to capital asset
> > production relative to production lower-order goods.
> > Firms engaged in production of higher-order goods
> > must reduce production, or face bankruptcy. The
> > capital production bubble bursts.
> >
> > Now the constituency trusts begin to suffer, as the
> > value of the stock they hold falls. Dividend payments
> > fall, and constituents face lower incomes. Some of
> > the loans from banks may not be repaid by the trusts,
> > and the capital credit insurer must step in to cover
> > the losses. If the losses are large enough, then the
> > capital credit reinsurance corporation (CCRC) may
> > have to cover the losses of the capital credit
> > insurer. Since the CCRC is ultimately a tanpayer-
> > backed corporation (like the FDIC or Freddie Mac),
> > the taxpayers bail out the CCRC. The capital
> > distribution to the "labor workers" has been funded
> > with tax dollars, and the gross earnings on capital
> > are no greater than when the plan was initiated. In
> > sum, the entire scheme is nothing more than the sort
> > of government-backed wealth redistribution that
> > binary economists claim is inevitable with
> > "conventional" economics. The scale of their
> > envisioned plan would make this a far larger
> > redistribution than is currently occurring.
> >
> > The level of inflation under such a plan would be
> > severe. Ironically, the binary economists insist that
> > their capital distribution plan would eliminate
> > inflation. Kelso and Kelso write, "The entire design
> > is cal culated to negate inflation because it
> > eliminates the chief cause of inflation, namely
> > redistribution."42 The logic here is inscrutable.
> > Roth
> >
> > ---to be continued---
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail
> >
> > ==^================================================================
> > This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bdGeWV.a2VpdGh3
> > Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> > http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
> > ==^================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^================================================================
