As the financial crisis that erupted
in 2007 unfolds in an economic cataclysm which, it is now clear, is unprecedented
in the history of capitalism, world leaders without exception reveal themselves
as politically and ideologically bankrupt in their efforts to bring it
under control. This is most obviously demonstrated by their insistence
on the need for individuals and enterprises to boost their levels of consumption
and fixed investment - with the aid of new loans from the financial sector
- even though it is obvious that the immediate cause of the crisis has
been the creation of excessive credit leading people (and businesses)
to spend well beyond their means.
The implication of this manifestly perverse official response to the crisis
is that the world economic system has become fatally dependent on the
need endlessly to expand production (of goods and services) at the fastest
possible rate without regard to the ability of the market to absorb them.
It is the compulsion to feed this addiction to rapid growth - in the face
of long-term decline in the rate of global GDP increase since the 1970s
- which has driven the credit bubble (or, as we should rather say, series
of bubbles) that has now finally burst with such devastating effect.
The logic of this strategy of trying to revive the level of consumption
and investment (total final expenditure) at all costs is that it is necessary
in order to overcome the shortfall in demand relative to productive capacity
(of capital and labour), thereby increasing the rate of capacity utilisation.
Clearly, however, the same objective could in principle be achieved by
allowing productive capacity to shrink - through the natural process of
capital destruction brought about through the classic business cycle.
But equally clearly, since this would also mean putting tens of millions
of surplus workers into unemployment as well as the obliteration of scores
of trillions in market value of financial assets. allowing the cycle to
run its course in this way would impose unacceptable economic and social
disruption on a global scale.
The evidence of the last 30 years points unambiguously to the conclusion
that it is not possible to avert such a disaster by artificially boosting
demand to fill the ''output gap''. For we have known at least since the
1970s that ''Keynesian'' policies cannot indefinitely stave off or reverse
such downturns - and also risk inducing unacceptable levels of inflation
- while the three subsequent decades of neo-liberalism have equally failed
to stop global growth rates from continuing to slow - despite a massive
boost to indebtedness in an increasingly desperate attempt to keep people
spending.
Now that this strategy has inevitably collapsed in a morass of unpayable
debt it is striking that the entire global leadership have nothing to
propose but a rerun of the failed Keynesian agenda of yesteryear. Yet
they must be aware that the danger of this approach is that levels of
public debt (as a proportion of GDP) are already at least twice as high
as 30 years ago, limiting the scope for further borrowing or money printing
without risking Weimar / Mugabe-style currency collapse. Furthermore such
an attempt to revive demand for both capital and labour will be rendered
even more futile than in the past by a shift in a) the pattern of demand
away from manufactures towards services (which are less capital-intensive)
and b) technological change (so that less capital and labour are now needed
per unit of output). At the same time other factors (health consciousness,
environmental constraints) are tending to limit or even reverse consumption
growth. Despite these constraints all governments - and most economists
- are seemingly committed to this strategy which is bound to fail.
Given this unanimity it seems inevitable for the moment (as of January
2009) that such a strategy will continue to be pursued until it is shown
to be unworkable (perhaps by an outbreak of hyperinflation). It is important
to prepare for this eventuality and face the reality that we are long
past the stage where it is possible to avoid a calamitous contraction
in global production by artificial stimulation of demand. At that point
it should also become inescapably self-evident that such a contraction
is the only way that the crisis of overproduction can be resolved under
the capitalist system. Yet since this would be intolerable it follows
that
- drastic measures must be taken by the authorities (including where necessary the expropriation of private sector assets) to minimise economic disruption and social distress;
- the system itself must be fundamentally reformed so that it can no longer inflict such harm on the community in future.
It likewise follows from the preceding analysis of the weaknesses of
the existing capitalist model that maximising GDP growth is no longer
tenable as the supreme public good of economic policy makers - as it has
been at least since World War II. By the same token an economic system
that is dependent on high growth - based largely on profit-maximising
shareholder companies - must be seen as outmoded. In trying to develop
a more functional and sustainable economic model we shall need to return
to first principles.
Back to first principles
It must be recognised that the essentially Ricardian theoretical basis
of conventional economics, which has predominated since the Industrial
Revolution, is fundamentally flawed and designed primarily to serve the
interests of owners of capital in that
- It prioritises targeting the level of production so as to bring it in line with the available or potential capacity of productive factors rather than adjusting capacity to the actual or potential level of need / effective demand;
- It assumes that under conditions of more or less free competition markets will always tend to equilibrium at levels consistent with the full employment of productive factors.
Little attention has been given to the fact that Ricardo’s own contemporary
Malthus exposed the central theoretical weakness in this model in that
it ultimately rests on the very primitive Say’s Law - ''supply creates
it own demand'' - which underpins Ricardo’s Labour Theory of Value. The
fact that the latter was uncritically adopted by Marx and his followers
is perhaps ascribable to their close identification with another producer
interest - labour - whose leaders may have seen it as conveniently aligned
with their own narrow objective of maximising the numbers employed (potential
union members / political supporters). Although Keynes and his followers
recognised the importance of Malthus’ critique and insight that overproduction
was not only possible but chronically inevitable, they were and are overwhelmingly
supporters of the same producer (capitalist) interests favoured by Ricardo.
It follows from the above that a more rational, sustainable and politically
acceptable economic model needs to shift the emphasis away from prioritising
the interests of producers (owners of capital and labour) - including
the insatiable demand to devote an ever greater share of value added to
maintaining the rate of return on accumulated capital - to giving primacy
to the interests of the far greater number of consumers and taxpayers.
By moving in this direction we should give ourselves the chance better
to respond to what should surely be the basic purpose of a rational economic
system: to provide people with what they need and want to the maximum
extent possible with the available resources. (This might be seen as consistent
with the old Utilitarian ideal of ''the greatest good of the greatest
number''). Advocates of market capitalism have long claimed that it meets
this criterion by forcing enterprises to adopt the principle that ''the
customer is king''. In reality we know - on the authority of Adam Smith
himself as well as from our own experience - that entrepreneurs are naturally
motivated by a desire to maximise profits above all other concerns[1],
and that meeting the demands of consumers - not to mention workers and
taxpayers - has to be subordinated to that priority.
Alternative vision for
the future
Key principles and features of this would be:
- Downgrade / abandon the growth objective. This would inevitably mean placing more emphasis on income redistribution both within and between nations (recognising that ''trickle down'' is a myth).
- Give priority to stability and security (economic and social) consistent with equity and maximum economic efficiency (long-term lowest economic cost[2]).
- Subject the corporate sector to proper public accountability. Since the self-regulated profits system has proved unable to deliver general economic prosperity - rather the opposite - it is no longer tolerable that it should enjoy the privileges and protection conferred by the state (including limited liability) without the attachment of stringent conditions - e.g. effective public veto over key decisions (investment, pricing etc.). This would obviously tend to restrict returns on capital (ROC) and lead over time to the public (at national or local level) owning as well as controlling most key enterprises as private investors sold out because of inadequate rewards relative to risk.[3]
- Explicitly jettison the ever more meaningless goal of ''full employment'' - often used to justify support for maximising growth (albeit long tacitly abandoned by governments) in favour of a radically different system of income distribution. This would be based on a) universal entitlement to a citizen's income (at a flat basic ''survival'' level) regardless of means or employment status and b) more regulated labour (and product) markets designed to prevent any groups or individuals gaining an unfair share of national or global value added in a world of more limited growth.
- Abandon ''free'' trade in favour of explicitly managed trade. Scrap the WTO system in favour of regulated multilateral structures - and severely restrict the free movement of capital. A key principle here would be that - in a world of more limited scope for growth - investment, production and trade must be organised so that value added is redistributed in favour of the most disadvantaged (particularly in the Third World). (It should also be noted in this connection that another Ricardian shibboleth cherished by mainstream economists which needs to be jettisoned is the idea that maximising the growth of world trade is a public good - all the more so now that this objective is seen to conflict with that of minimising carbon emissions. This would clearly imply that the full economic costs of transporting goods should be taken into account, thus favouring more emphasis on local sourcing of goods, other things being equal).
- Initiate international action to stabilise commodity markets and limit price fluctuations - in place of the present laissez faire régime (which benefits only rent-seeking speculators). This applies most obviously to foodstuffs, where we must now re-learn the once familiar lessons of the destructiveness of uncontrolled commodity markets and the disastrous effect of crop price cycles on consumers and small farmers alike; but also notably to energy, where the recent grotesque gyrations of oil and gas prices have a) wrought economic havoc in both exporting and importing countries and b) undermined the confidence of potential investors in both conventional and renewable production.
Crucially any alternative system must be geared to determining economic
priorities and allocating resources based on criteria other than the highest
rate of ROC (profit maximisation) as determined by the market. This must
imply reaching such decisions based on politically determined selection
- derived in turn from democratic processes defining greatest (social)
need. Once the requirement to maximise returns to shareholders is removed
- along with the bias in favour of the most capital-intensive forms of
fixed investment - it will become apparent that a huge share of economic
value added that is at present wastefully diverted to serving the priorities
of the owners of capital[4] can be more usefully
devoted to serving the needs of the wider public as briefly outlined above.
It is self-evident that the transition to such a collectivist, more humane
economic model cannot occur overnight. Thus in order to avert the most
dire consequences of the ongoing collapse of the existing model it will
be necessary to maintain and extend the kind of emergency state intervention
and support already being provided by governments since 2007 (although
it would be quite feasible to adopt measures such as the reintroduction
of exchange controls without delay). What is important, however - if recurrent
disaster is to be averted - is to set a course now to a more sustainable
model for the future, and to discredit the widely held fantasy that we
shall be able to return to ''business as usual'' once the crisis is over.