New Zealand has the makings of a new political party. Well, its early days for this one because it seems to have no substantive backers. Its called the 'New Economics Party' but my evaluation will demonstrate that its not 'new' just 'ignorance of economics', and that's far from new. The problem with any new political party, or group with such ambitions is that they inevitably convey a lack of understanding of economics and psychology.
Their idea is to tax 'resources' rather than 'production'. This is a rather silly idea because any tax on resources is passed through to work, so is there any distinction? A resource is nothing without preparation or reticulation/distribution, so its a moot point. Someone has to pay, and its not the resource. So 'resource rent' is not a magical escape from the cost of supporting a welfare state, if that is implied.
There is actually some value in this thinking, though I cannot sanction a collectivist notion like 'the Earth (or resources) are for sharing'. This is not substantive enough as an intellectual foundation, however I would argue or support the notion that people did not 'make' or create' resources. They were already there. So what are we to make of resources which are there, but someone makes them marketable. There is some value in their 'potential' value. The question is:
1. Should private persons be allowed to develop them at zero cost. This is not reasonable because resource assessment and exploitation entails impositions on competing land uses. Do people have a right to expect no impedence from competing land users. i.e. Does your lifestyle property have a right not to expect explosive vibration from a nearby development, even if its not on your land? Clearly, resource development is inextricably linked to other issues.
2. Should private persons be able to develop them after related costs. This makes the most sense simply because it recognises the value created by individuals who didn't create the value, say gold mineral, but they did identify it, spend money appraising it, carrying the risk of plant, capital and labour in order to extract it. The argument is that they are making 'super profits', but those profits arose only because of the boom-bust economy created by governments. A private 'unfettered' market would be more predictable, and more boring. Spculators love contemporary market uncertainty because they manage it full time. Fund managers love uncertainty too because they get to manage the funds of apprehensive salarymen. They get to buy out cheap those small resource companies small investors are scared to invest in.
3. Should a 'middle-man' government to able to act as a custodian and tax those resources or any resulting income for the benefit of others. The implication is that these resources are a 'public good' and that the government can impose high royalties upon these resources so that the miner only extracts a 'nominal' return. The implication of this would be that the governments of the world would effectively be planning resource development and production, and inevitably prices. Might the world benefit from resource planning? No question. Its in fact already there, though it could be argued that the information distribution is less than 'fair'. That is another question, insofar as markets need to appraise market information. What is the public's right to know? What is the implication of not knowing. Risk = ignorance. The implication of not knowing is higher cost of capital. This is not good for resource developers, and thus the justification why resource developers have a vested 'common' interest in disclosure. The flipside is that they might perceive themselves to have a vested interest in misleading information, i.e. Not disclosing or minimalising information about a project. This however does require an act of faith by the investor, and this should not be accepted even if corporate custodians are considered 'trustees', their interests are split between corporation and shareholders. Remember that they are employed by the corporation, which is considered a 'separate entity'. Individual shareholders are therefore collectivised in their interests. You might wonder about how to balance new versus existing shareholders.
The rationale for this 'new economics' is the cliche of resource overuse, resource depletion and climate change. This is reactionary populism. i.e. Politics chasing 'pseudo-science'. Resource depletion is nonsense; long ago discounted. There is no shortage of resources; their presence is essentially infinite. The rhetoric is that there is a fixed quantity of metal in the universe. The stupidity of this argument is that:
1. There is not a fixed number of humans
2. Its an incredibly large universe
3. Our per capita resource use is actually falling in the West whilst rates are still high in the third world, and their population growth rates are rapidly falling. The concerns of today will be the opposite in 30 years time. Then we will be complaining about lack of consumption. i.e. We might be compelled to stimulate people to consume. In fact I doubt this will be the case because I think we will have shifted to a new philosophical system.
This party suggests we need multiple currencies; but in fact this is precisely what we have. There is nothing wrong with that; the problem is that they are supported by the arbitrary power of the government to tax.
Inequality is actually a non-issue. People don't need to be concerned about 'inequality'; they need to be concerned about 'rights', and basic needs. The richest people are found in 'prosperous' societies; so what threat do they pose. They don't unless given an extortionary sanction by governments. So government is the threat. Money can be used for good or bad; its government which has a monopoly over the legitimatised use of force. The other issue is sustainability living to avoid destitution, and that generally requires some survival strategy and provisions for mishap. It does not require a great deal of wealth, simply a house and farm plot and a basic insurance scheme. We live in a world where people's living standards depend on other's capacity to avoid extortive taxation. This can only justify spurning civil society. They have been disincentivised to produce.
The notion of a state state economy is a nonsensical conception for a number of reasons:
1. There is no justification for renouncing success or security
2. Provisions for security are founded on 'forward-looking' provisions, not avoidance strategies
3.
This political party posits as some defence against 'dog-eat-dog' capitalism, but is precisely the implication of its incoherent values. It simply assumes too much.
Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook
Their idea is to tax 'resources' rather than 'production'. This is a rather silly idea because any tax on resources is passed through to work, so is there any distinction? A resource is nothing without preparation or reticulation/distribution, so its a moot point. Someone has to pay, and its not the resource. So 'resource rent' is not a magical escape from the cost of supporting a welfare state, if that is implied.
There is actually some value in this thinking, though I cannot sanction a collectivist notion like 'the Earth (or resources) are for sharing'. This is not substantive enough as an intellectual foundation, however I would argue or support the notion that people did not 'make' or create' resources. They were already there. So what are we to make of resources which are there, but someone makes them marketable. There is some value in their 'potential' value. The question is:
1. Should private persons be allowed to develop them at zero cost. This is not reasonable because resource assessment and exploitation entails impositions on competing land uses. Do people have a right to expect no impedence from competing land users. i.e. Does your lifestyle property have a right not to expect explosive vibration from a nearby development, even if its not on your land? Clearly, resource development is inextricably linked to other issues.
2. Should private persons be able to develop them after related costs. This makes the most sense simply because it recognises the value created by individuals who didn't create the value, say gold mineral, but they did identify it, spend money appraising it, carrying the risk of plant, capital and labour in order to extract it. The argument is that they are making 'super profits', but those profits arose only because of the boom-bust economy created by governments. A private 'unfettered' market would be more predictable, and more boring. Spculators love contemporary market uncertainty because they manage it full time. Fund managers love uncertainty too because they get to manage the funds of apprehensive salarymen. They get to buy out cheap those small resource companies small investors are scared to invest in.
3. Should a 'middle-man' government to able to act as a custodian and tax those resources or any resulting income for the benefit of others. The implication is that these resources are a 'public good' and that the government can impose high royalties upon these resources so that the miner only extracts a 'nominal' return. The implication of this would be that the governments of the world would effectively be planning resource development and production, and inevitably prices. Might the world benefit from resource planning? No question. Its in fact already there, though it could be argued that the information distribution is less than 'fair'. That is another question, insofar as markets need to appraise market information. What is the public's right to know? What is the implication of not knowing. Risk = ignorance. The implication of not knowing is higher cost of capital. This is not good for resource developers, and thus the justification why resource developers have a vested 'common' interest in disclosure. The flipside is that they might perceive themselves to have a vested interest in misleading information, i.e. Not disclosing or minimalising information about a project. This however does require an act of faith by the investor, and this should not be accepted even if corporate custodians are considered 'trustees', their interests are split between corporation and shareholders. Remember that they are employed by the corporation, which is considered a 'separate entity'. Individual shareholders are therefore collectivised in their interests. You might wonder about how to balance new versus existing shareholders.
The rationale for this 'new economics' is the cliche of resource overuse, resource depletion and climate change. This is reactionary populism. i.e. Politics chasing 'pseudo-science'. Resource depletion is nonsense; long ago discounted. There is no shortage of resources; their presence is essentially infinite. The rhetoric is that there is a fixed quantity of metal in the universe. The stupidity of this argument is that:
1. There is not a fixed number of humans
2. Its an incredibly large universe
3. Our per capita resource use is actually falling in the West whilst rates are still high in the third world, and their population growth rates are rapidly falling. The concerns of today will be the opposite in 30 years time. Then we will be complaining about lack of consumption. i.e. We might be compelled to stimulate people to consume. In fact I doubt this will be the case because I think we will have shifted to a new philosophical system.
This party suggests we need multiple currencies; but in fact this is precisely what we have. There is nothing wrong with that; the problem is that they are supported by the arbitrary power of the government to tax.
"Equality, according to research, makes everyone happier"This is absolute nonsense for two reasons. The concept of happiness is a rather 'arbitrary' measure of well-being simply because it relies on people's honesty in being able to appraise their happiness. I'd argue that people are surprisingly successful in their capacity to delude themselves into thinking they are happy. I would challenge you to ask people 'who say they are happy' to actually tell you why. I think you might find it enlightening. Its often a wish rather than the true state of their apprehensions about their lives, and their suspicions and disdain of others. The other problem is the contemporary measure of 'equality'. This conception is very often a false dichotomy.
Inequality is actually a non-issue. People don't need to be concerned about 'inequality'; they need to be concerned about 'rights', and basic needs. The richest people are found in 'prosperous' societies; so what threat do they pose. They don't unless given an extortionary sanction by governments. So government is the threat. Money can be used for good or bad; its government which has a monopoly over the legitimatised use of force. The other issue is sustainability living to avoid destitution, and that generally requires some survival strategy and provisions for mishap. It does not require a great deal of wealth, simply a house and farm plot and a basic insurance scheme. We live in a world where people's living standards depend on other's capacity to avoid extortive taxation. This can only justify spurning civil society. They have been disincentivised to produce.
The notion of a state state economy is a nonsensical conception for a number of reasons:
1. There is no justification for renouncing success or security
2. Provisions for security are founded on 'forward-looking' provisions, not avoidance strategies
3.
This political party posits as some defence against 'dog-eat-dog' capitalism, but is precisely the implication of its incoherent values. It simply assumes too much.
Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook
No comments:
Post a Comment