Issues & Questions for A New Economics

A. Theory of Scarcity & Surplus
1. As Orio points out, Adam Smith formulated the Wealth of Nations during an age of scarcity, before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, before even the invention of the steam engine, when food, clothing and virtually all other economic goods were in short supply. Since then technological development has multiplied productivity. Combined with the global spread of production capabilities and the globalization of trade, it is now possible for one or few companies or countries to produce the entire world’s requirement of many products. A new economics has to centrally recognize the significance of the shift from scarcity to surplus.
2. Inadequacy of production capacity combined in Smith’s day with severe shortages of land and most raw materials, leading Malthus to postulate that population growth would soon outstrip food production. As Orio also observes, the very basis of economy has largely shifted from production of goods to delivery of services. While services, too, depend on a material basis of infrastructure (e.g. telecom) and products (e.g. computers), they are not nearly as dependent on limited material resources. Increasing the supply of education, health care, communications, transportation, financial services and entertainment is far less constrained by material limitations. Economics needs to evolve a new theory of scarcity and surplus, poverty and prosperity.
3. For these reasons, scarcity is no longer a fact of life to be taken for granted. It is rapidly being supplanted by an economy of overproduction, in which unregulated production leads to economic instability, bankruptcies, wastage and massive dislocation of workers. Today overproduction is a serious threat to economic stability and growth. Moreover, the globalization of production makes it increasingly difficult to manage or regulate production to mitigate the problem, since information systems and controls are still largely confined to the national level. Smith’s economics was based on the capacity of the market to arrive at a natural equilibrium. But as in the case of monopolistic constraints on supply, overproduction can generate conditions in which the equilibrium state generated by the market is far from optimal for economic health and human welfare. The new economics has to replace the 18th century notion of self-regulating markets to establish the precise role of regulation in a market economy.
4. These trends raise basic questions:
a) How should the new economics take into account the vanishing limits to supply of economic goods?
b) What is the theoretical basis for understanding and managing surpluses?
c) How can global production be effectively balanced for economic stability and to maximize the fulfillment of human needs?
d) What should be the governing principles and mechanisms for balancing supply and demand in the new economics?
e) What will new economic theory postulate regarding the future prosperity of humanity?

B. Human Welfare
1. As Orio points out, Smith’s economics is based on the primacy of production. Higher production through specialization and division of labor combined with trade was Smith’s formula for economic growth and the wealth of nations. We now know that all growth is not beneficial to humanity – proliferation of weapons systems and small arms production, drug trade, over-building of real estate, gas guzzling automobiles, etc.
2. Economics may have been founded on a faith in the benevolent wisdom of natural laws, but we now know that the laws of economics are strictly man-made and the outcomes are the result of human values, attitudes, institutions, policies and choices. Reliance on impersonal market mechanisms has been a useful excuse for blatant inequalities, excesses, injustices and inefficiencies that harm rather than nurture overall human development.
3. The essential objective of human economic activity is to meet human needs and maximize human welfare. Human welfare is not merely a part of economics. It must be the fundamental premise and central objective.
a) How will the principles of the new economics reflect the primacy of human choice and human welfare?
b) How will it effectively and justly reconcile the rights of the individual achiever with the overall welfare of the social collective and humanity as a whole?

C. Globalization
1. Smith’s approach is based on optimal performance of a part of society, in this case the nation-state. What works for the part does not necessarily work for the world economy as a whole, e.g. the export-driven growth strategy of East Asian economies and now China cannot be replicated by all nations globally. Today we need an economic theory that is valid for the whole world economy and will maximize benefits for all humanity.
2. According to a report of the NIC (US National Intelligence Council), by 2025 a single ‘international community’ composed of nation-states will no longer exist. International security expert Jasjit Singh (WAAS Fellow) argues compelling that the time has come for nations to abandon the competitive security paradigm in which each nation tries to enhance its national security by measures than increase the insecurity of other nations, in favor of a cooperative model that maximizes security for all. Similarly, Smith wrote in an age of nationalism and his economic conception is based on a competitive model for how one nation can dominate over others. Today there is need for new theory based on a cooperative model that achieves maximum economic security and well-being for all. The EU is based on a cooperative paradigm internally, but remains competitive in its external relations.

D. Employment
1. During Smith’s time, production was entirely dependent on labor and, therefore, economic growth might be largely synonymous with growth of employment opportunities and incomes. This is no longer true. Today technological development makes it possible to multiply production and expand economically, while employment levels decline and wages stagnate.
2. Employment markets are no longer national. The globalization of production by MNCs makes it possible to source goods from anywhere in the world. Outsourcing is doing the same for many types of services. But regulation and economic policies to maximize employment are still confined to the national level. Our employment models and policies are nation-centric. How will the new economics reconcile global labor markets with national-level employment policies?
3. So long as employment remains the principle means by which people acquire the money needed for the goods and services they need for survival and welfare, the growing separation between production and employment can spell increasing hardship and catastrophe.
a) How will the new economics reconcile optimal efficiency of production with full employment?
b) What place is there in a human-centered economics for theory based on the premise that employment is a natural right which must be guaranteed?

E. Money
1. Money originated as a medium of exchange and store of value backed by and representing actual goods. Its central purpose was to promote trade. It has gradually evolved into a purely symbolic medium backed by political and social institutions and intangible public trust, which can be created and multiplied without relation to production, products or economic activity.
2. A purely material or even an economic theory of money is inadequate to explain how trillions of dollars in wealth can be created on the basis of rising expectations or destroyed as a result of falling public confidence due to war, election results, or future expectations. A theory of money must reexamine fundamental questions such as
a) What is money and what does it represent?
b) What is the role of material, economic, political and social factors in the creation of money and determination of its value?
3. Government and banks are not the only agencies that create money. Every commercial transaction, every exchange based on credit, in fact, every act that enhances public trust and confidence in government, economy and the future also impacts the creation of money. Production of money is now a social process taking place subconsciously. A new economics need to fully understand that social process and clearly identify the factors governing money creation.
4. Originally money was created as a token to represent products that were already in existence. Today money is created to represent future as well as past production, e.g. banks create money in the form of student loans to develop new skills and capacities for future production. Thus, money is a means for converting undeveloped and unutilized social potential into a usable form. A theory of money needs to examine the factors that govern and limit the creation of current money based on future wealth or underutilized social capacities.
5. In addition to national currencies, a variety of local and complementary currencies have come in to use to supplement and compensate for the inadequacies of official money. New theory should explain precisely how and why these complementary forms of money are viable and what unutilized social capacity they monetize.
6. Money is not merely a thing. It links together and integrates all the other activities of society. It has gradually evolved into a complex social institution that wields enormous economic, political and social power and is interchangeable with many other types of power. It plays a role similar to that of government which is an organization of political power. The new economics needs to develop a theory of money as a primary social institution of enormous power and complexity, itself both the source and result of political, economic, social and psychological factors.
a) What is the ultimate source of the power money represents?
b) What determines its limits of that power?
c) How is money creation related to freedom and democracy?

F. Finance
1. Financial markets were originally established as a means to support investment in trade and industry. Now they have become an end in themselves and, at times, a threat to the stability and health of the real economy. More than 95% of international financial transactions are unrelated to actual trade in goods and services. So too, an equal proportion of financial market activity is unrelated the real economy. Yet as the recent financial crisis so painfully demonstrates, a subsidiary activity (finance) when given unbridled freedom can jeopardize the underlying economy it was intended to serve. Nobel Prizes have been awarded for computerized trading models that foster financial instability. A new economics needs to define the rightful role of financial markets in economy. It should has examine the value and role of speculation in economic development.
2. Economic theory is based on national level currencies controlled by national governments. Today more than $3 trillion circles the globe every day in search of speculative returns, destabilizing currency values, inflating and deflating share prices overnight, creating an unpredictable and dangerous environment for long term business investment decisions. A new economics has to consider how global financial markets can be most effectively regulated. It needs also to theorize on the potential benefits of instituting a single global currency to support evolution of a single global economy.
3. Global financial assets have multiplied from $12 trillion to $180 trillion over the past three decade, representing a huge surplus of money that is not being effectively utilized for productive purposes. As in 1929, again in 2008 the huge unabsorbed surplus of money that was not absorbed for productive purposes destabilized the world economy. Surely there is something inherently defective in an economic theory and practice that is unable to utilize this money for productive and socially constructive purposes, when so much of the world is still in dire need of economic development. A new economics needs to evolve a comprehensive theory of the role of global financial markets in economy and human welfare.

G. Equity & Equality
1. For decades, development economists and social leaders have condemned on ethical grounds the blatant and growing inequalities between rich and poor within and between nations. In response, what is morally unjustifiable has been justified economically as materially beneficial to the welfare of society. The history of human progress over the past two centuries has been characterized by increasing equality in terms of political and social rights, freedom, voting rights, universal education, etc. The justification of economic inequality is inconsistent with the abundant evidence that the extension of benefits to lower sections of the population is both beneficial and essential for the maximum welfare of society as a whole. A new economics has to take into account the role of equity and inequality in terms of both ethics and social welfare. What is the true place of equity of distribution in economics and human life?
2. Freedom and equality are complementary values. Yet since the demise of communism, economic theory has swung back in favor of an extreme form of unregulated wealth-creation leading to rising inequalities. A new economics should examine the rightful role and reconciliation of these complementary values.
3. Jasjit Singh’s WAAS project on Revolution in Human Affairs is predicated on the hypothesis that growing inequality between communities and nations rather than absolute levels of poverty is the principal cause for terrorism and rising social unrest in the developing world. Lack of employment opportunities is believed to be a significant factor in the propensity of youth to join terrorist movements. According to the NIC, “unless employment conditions change dramatically in parlous youth-bulge states such as Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Yemen, these countries will remain ripe for continued instability and state failure.” The same is true of the poor and unemployed in China, India and other developing countries. This suggests that valid economic theory cannot be isolated or divorced from concerns regarding political and social stability. The principles of a new economics must take into account the wider goals of social stability and human welfare, not just the narrower goals of wealth generation by producers.

H. Ecological Sustainability
1. Ecologists have long argued that economic theory does not take into account the true cost of irreplaceable materials and other natural resources that are consumed in the process of economic activity. A new economics must be ecologically sound and based on principles that promote ecological health and sustainability.

I. Social Development
1. Economic growth is the process of increasing production and higher living standards. But economic activity takes place in an ever-changing, ever-evolving context. Society is constantly generating new ideas, new needs, new technologies, new products, higher aspirations, growing expectations, higher levels of productive capacity, more complex organizations, and, as a result, higher levels of material security and enjoyment. Development is a complex social process that involves political, social, psychological, technological, organizational and cultural factors. Our ideas, understanding, perceptions, social attitudes, psychological aspirations and cultural values are crucial determinants of this process. Ultimately a new economics must be founded upon and consistent with an underlying theory of social development applicable to human progress in all fields of activity.

Comments

Comments on Issues & Questions for A New Economics

Dear Garry,

I am now responding to some specific issues from your document Issues & Questions for A New Economics of January 2010, which I find largely very good and stimulating:

A. I would not say that the "economy has shifted from production of goods to delivery of services" :in fact services are part for over two third(often much more) of the supply/ production side. Besides this Toffler wrote also about prosumer functions.

I would be careful in overstating "overproduction" : scarcity is still the basis of economics ( only heavens has no scarcity ). There are many specific cases today of overproduction, OK, like automobiles in US and some in Europe, but even in this field and most others is much more a problem of redistribution, with about 1 billion people undernourished.

OK " economics needs to evolve a new theory of scarcity and surplus, poverty and prosperity ",as you say. For this I propose to start by redefining economic value ( see my previous email, etc.)

B : OK, just remember that economic thinking was supply side until the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20%. This had nothing to do with beeing "left" or "right" as it has been often said in the last decades : after all A.Smith was rather "left". Understanding this long term shift ( 2 centuries ) is fundamental.

C : Globalisation and international trade : here too we should overcame traditional international trade theory, often opposing international investment and trade . In fact, because of the great content of services in production and utilisation of goods, international trade and international investment are complementary and go more and more together. Exporting a textile machine to another country means also to invest locally at least in maintenance ( even if in some cases of very high technological and expensive tools, maintenance is often global, but the utilisation of this tool still requires local work, learning and applications , logistics, etc. ).

D. Employment : see the book on the Employment Dilemma. In A.Smith time "production was ALMOST ( not entirely ) dependent on labor". "Separation between production and employment" again on the basis of which "value"? In any case it is important to consider the expansion of "part time" remunerated work, the complement of subsidies ( pensions , various forms of basic income, etc. ), the value of non remunerated activities. In any case I agree that employment ( at least part-time, see my book) should be guaranteed, part of human rights . This also needs a deep study and understanding of fiscal systems

E. Money: the history of money is often misunderstood....it sounds often as if at the time of Julius Cesar, Rome could count on the service of a number of local agents of banks. ( Citybank, UBS, etc.) Up to three centuries ago the majority of agricultural production was self produced and self consumed (no use of money) and the size of the most famous trading fairs was such to be contained in one or two containers of today. We lack a serious history of how money's use was extended in the economy and society. Second, of how non remunerated activities and goods and services are passing from the state of a free availability to a remunerated one (and vice-versa maybe from now on, since the IR ). We should then distinguish : non-monetarized activities, where there is no exchange ( i.e. the "value of the oceans") from monetarized ones ( where there is an exchange, implicit or explicit : in the first case we have a non-monetized exchange and in the second a monetized one). These distinctions are key to discuss ecological issues (see my Limits to Certainty). The Chicago school only made a first step in this direction.

F. Finance: here is one of the biggest holes in economics, missing the function of insurance ( private and public ) WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM BANKING.

It is key here to understand what is the contemporary Service Economy (based on performance in time ). This means that various institutions (of an insurance type) have to accumulate reserves linked to future probable accidents and events of any sort. The accumulation of such reserves gives another dimension to the notion of Capital ( they go beyond the simple notion of Savings). They are linked to the "production-utilisation system" of the present Service Economy. And they grow more and more. It is clearly visible how in many instances Insurance today is relatively more and more important with reference to the Banking system as compared with only few decades ago.

Here was the great mistake of AIG, not recognizing their very strength, insurance ( a paradox!) : they believed that financial banking was the place of brilliance.But this is and another world . The distinction is still a very fuzzy case for traditional financial economists.A clear case is the way in which the regulators in Basel are discussing about the financial world, on the basis of the connotations of banking, and little understanding of insurance.

G. OK. But it seems to me that the fundamental issue, conditioning everything else, is the will and the battle for power ( whatever the excuse, ideological or not). The human species is not yet quite "civilized" on this. The so called "class struggle" is in most cases just a "leaders class struggle". It derives ( in a positive sense) from the need to survive, but ( in the negative sense ) to the "pleasure" exercise control on others. This within the framework of the necessity of society to remain stable as much as possible, which leads in my view to see federalism , locally and worldwide, as the great political challenge of tomorrow ( probably after tomorrow) . This is linked also to my comment on your project about "individuality".

H. Ecology: as I already mentioned, ecology is about economics in a lager sense, a cost , monetarized and not, monetized and not, in the production process of wealth ( mostly at the end of the chain of value, but not exclusively )

Sustainability is a useful word to promote "long term" views and actions. The word is new, the concept not.

I. Social development: OK !

Best wishes

Orio

Reply to Orio

Dear Orio

Thank you for your thoughtful, constructive comments on my note, which help me better understand your thinking and give further stimulus to my own thoughts.

A. Scarcity & Surplus: Your comment on overproduction is well taken. I should have said that humanity now has the capacity to produce enormous surpluses, a condition that did not pertain in Smith’s time when production capacity was severely limited and increasing production appeared to be the main objective. I do not use the phrase ‘surplus capacity’ here in the traditional sense of existing production capacity which is unutilized, but rather with reference to the capacity of the society to increase production to almost any level if it decides to do so, as the US demonstrated during WWII. In that sense, we need to evolve theory that recognizes this unutilized surplus social capacity. As you say, redefining economic value is a crucial step. The essential basis should be contribution to human welfare.

E. Money: I fully concur with your observation that we need a historical perspective which reflects the growing use of money and monetization of society. This trend reflects a shift away from self-production and consumption as you noted. It also reflects an increasing interaction and interdependence between human beings, based on a division of labor, specialization and exchange. In this sense we could say that the spread of money reflects increasing social integration and that this increasing integration taps previously unutilized potentials for production, exchange and consumption. Society at any time can be viewed as a set of linkages and positive relationships between individuals and groups. Over time the number, variety and complexity of those relationships increases dramatically, resulting in increased social opportunity, economic productivity and human welfare. This evolutionary integration of social organization is one of the principle sources of increasing prosperity, i.e. social relationships create wealth.

F. Finance: You have made an important distinction between banking and insurance which is worth fully examining. Insurance is a uniquely creative social organization. From one point of view, it increased the welfare of the group by spreading the risk associated with indeterminate events. From another point of view, it converts indeterminability for the group into security and stability (definiteness) for individual members. Ideally, the theory should identify the maximum extent to which the principle of insurance can be applied for the welfare of humanity.

G. Equity & Equality: You have rightly pointed out that the struggle for political power and social dominance are at the bottom of this issue. That means economic theory, political theory and social theory cannot be considered independently of each other. What current theory fails to tell us is that a more equitable distribution of wealth, rather a concerted effort to raise the living standards of the lower levels, is the very soundest, most secure basis for social stability and increasing prosperity at all levels. That is intuitively obvious, but it needs to be theoretically formulated.

Best regards

Garry

New Wealth of Nations

Dear Garry,

I have a real pleasure in our exchange of ideas. I have read the first time your annex of January 8. I will read it AGAIN and make later several comments. Very stimulating.

Let me now submit to you right away some " fundamentals to fundamentals" in economics, elaborated through the years and which determine in my view the real possibility to recreate and revisit the "Wealth of Nations":

- economics was founded by Adam Smith as a CONSEQUENCE of the Industrial Revolution. It is the theory of this SPECIFIC historical phenomenon, and NOT of the economy in general. We are now in a Service based economy.

- the main preoccupation of classical economists was the supply side. Only over a century after A Smith, Marshall started to consider seriously the demand side ( much later, a key was Hicks ). Because they (rightly) thought that they had to do with poverty, they did not realize fully that the new production industrial capacities could only be acquired by SOLVABLE demand, that is by money : HENCE, for over a century economic crises were linked with real DEFLATION (except in particular when there was a great inflow of gold around 1870).

- So came Keynes, who stated that deflation in a crises situation, could morally and politically lead to accept to develop debts ( private and public ). So even the unions requests became a tool for this ( remember that police shoot against unions' manifestations, even in Geneva, until the beginning of last century). So Keynes was thought to be on the "left" side and keynesianism to be equivalent to demand expansion via the creation of money. This is WRONG : Keynes was not so blind to accept debts when they were likely to produce inflation ! ( see the way the inflation crisis developed after l973, when Keynes ideas were really misused ! ).

- Today economists are still turned in fact on the demand side : they have given up studying SERIOUSLY the supply side. The elasticity of supply has been implicitly and explicitly considered almost unlimited because of the triumph of technology . Therefore when the Club of Rome propagated the idea of Limits to Growth, they proclaimed it was nonsense : they proclaimed that higher price in energy would automatically increase production in the energy sector. This happened in part, BUT after many years, at increasing production costs. And in any case the average rate of growth in 1970 of 6% per year, scaled down to 3% and now 1% is considered a great progress.....! And this without considering that more and more af the value added is in fact value DEDUCTED , relative to costs where wealth has been de facto diminished ( I wrote on this ).

- another fundamental point , the philosophy of reference : for classical economics, supply and demand meet at the moment of a transaction and this gives an "equilibrium" price. Taking this ex-post, is just a tautology, taken ex-ante inevitably refers to a deterministic ( at best newtonian) system : predictions could be perfect, only if we could have the best information ( and good, perfect simulation models ). Again ( according to this underlying philosophy which in fact is an ideology) , knowledge will provide better and better information so to approach a "scientific" appreciation of the equilibrium.....

- in fact this equilibrium is linked to a deterministic idea of the notion of value. This could be acceptable as a first approximation at the times of the beginning of the industrial revolution , in a general cultural background, where "science" was equated with the achievement of certainty. But, forgetting that even Pascal said " knowledge is like a ball in a universe of ignorance: the more it growths, the greater is the amount of ignorance to face".

- the key today is to really reappreciate the production system , which at every phase reveals to be conditioned more and more by uncertainties: the game is to face risk management and control probabilities ( like an insurance policy !: in fact it is not insurance to become more"industrial", but the reverse, "industrial" production has been becoming more and more a field to face uncertainties and probabilities ).

- "production" begins at the research level ( from fundamental research to market research ), and this well before any real production or even decision to invest can start.

Nothing is more probabilistic than doing research , which in fact became a part of the economic system only less than a century ago ( a first case : the Battelle institute around 1930 ), well after A Smith, Ricardo and other Stuart Mill. And some fundamental research takes decades and more.

Producing goods require more services than hard products ( ask IBM or automobile producers ) : planning, security control, storage, personnel maintenance, distribution etc.

The REAL VALUE OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES concerns the PERIOD OF UTILISATION ( not to mix with the old economic notion of USE, which refers to the destination of the product or system). Here there are two uncertainties : the period ( how long shall I use a product or system ) and the possibilities of interruption ( accidents, occurrences of any kind and even negative consequences of the utilisation ).

Finally, wastes, which in most cases represent a deferred "production" costs.

All this then can only be referred to a probabilistic system : in fact it happens in reality if one would really observe closely how companies work!

- this also indicates that the classical Industrial Revolution and the present Service Economy relate to TWO DIFFERENT cultural and philosophical backgrounds

( like talking of pre- and post- Einstein physics )

- ANOTHER fundamental observation has to be made : the present measurements of "added value" ( i.e. " GNP ") refer to a FLOW AND NOT TO A STOCK. Whereas micro ( not macro ) economics normally establishes also accounts to evaluate the value of a company ( and even of an individual ) at certain moment in time and their variations. Even most "ecologists" concerned often with "stocks" have not remarked this situation, although in practice they can identify actions ( economic or others ) which destroy wealth ( stocks ). See for this my first report to the Club of Rome ( Dialogue on Wealth and Welfare, 1980 ) where I proposed to distinguish between

GNP and D&P ( Dowry and Patrimony ).

Well, that's enough for today. I will come back to your paper in my next email. And other key issues like "money" and non remunerated "productive" work.

Orio ( Vic )