Tag: interest

A portrait of Karl Marx

Marxism

nivtricLeave a comment

Core beliefs

Marx sees human history in terms of class struggle. Hegel had an idealist concept of a struggle of ideas driving history. The Marxist view of history holds that change arises from the material interests of classes, particularly those of the ruling and working classes. Individuals can play key roles at certain moments in history, but change depends on economic and class factors. There is an unavoidable historical progress from primitive to advanced, so from primitive societies, to feudalism, to bourgeois capitalism, which would finally end in workers owning the means of production, so socialism.

The second core Marxist idea is the law of value under capitalism. Capitalism is a system of production for the profit of the owners of the means of production, who exploit those who own nothing but their ability to work. Labour creates all the things and services that we use and need, but the value of that labour is appropriated by the owners of the means of production as ‘surplus value’ over and above what labour receives for its work. That surplus value is accumulated as capital, which adds value to labour. A worker with the proper equipment can produce far more widgets than one without.

Marx’s theories have little standing in economics, but that is not the strength of Marxism. It lies in recognising that the organisation of societies depends on economic factors, with competition as the hidden driving force. We work in corporations because that gives a competitive advantage, which affects the organisation of societies. The simple fact that we have time zones with standardised times is a result of the Industrial Revolution and train schedules. And Marx offered keen insights into what is wrong with capitalism, but these were 19th-century views, so translating them into modern equivalents can be illuminating.

Value is subjective

Marx claimed that capitalists’ profits come from appropriating the value that workers create, so stealing it. He based his claim on the labour theory of value, which economists of his time considered valid. The theory says that the price of an item equals the cost of labour required to make it, thus including the labour to produce the raw materials. If making a pair of shoes takes twice as much labour as making a pair of trousers, shoes cost twice as much as trousers. Marx asked himself, ‘If that is correct, how can there be profits?’ It is because the theory is wrong, not because capitalists are appropriating the value that workers create. There is no objective measure of value.

On the market, the price of an item depends on what people are willing to pay for it, not on what it costs to make. Otherwise, you could work a year on building a better mousetrap and sell it for €50,000. Nobody will buy a €50,000 mouse trap. However, after spending another €50,000 on building a brand in a marketing campaign, you might sell that same mousetrap for €200,000. That is because value is subjective. It might seem stupid to buy a €200,000 mousetrap, but if you have too much money and showing off the mousetrap makes you attractive to the ladies, it may be worth it.

Marx drew the incorrect conclusion that labour gives a product value, when it is entrepreneurship that does. Businesspeople organise the production and distribution of goods and services, which includes hiring labour, managing customer and supplier networks, making estimates about future consumer desires, or creating them with marketing campaigns, and doing all of this at a profit, as the operation requires capital. Marx overlooked that part of capitalism. That is why communist countries are poor. They don’t have entrepreneurs. As we near the end of humanity, with the profit motive as the primary cause, leaving it there would be a fatal mistake.

Value is what we believe it is. Nothing is sacred. Everything is for sale, including the rainforests and even the Earth. The so-called owners think it is all theirs and can do with it as they please. In a communist dictatorship, the government tells you what to believe. In the market, a story becomes true if you can sell it. That is why businesses advertise products that are bad for us. As money represents power, we stare into the moral abyss. That is why communists called their newspapers The Truth.

In a world without someone telling us what the truth is, there is no truth, and communism is just another message on the marketplace. The communists appealed to the workers’ self-interest. And that was a poor sell because workers were worse off under communism. It is why communism was doomed to fail, not because it is impossible to live like communists. Early Christians did. Rather than concluding he had just proven the labour value theory wrong, Marx claimed capitalists stole from their employees.

Silvio Gesell made the astute observation that the problem is not entrepreneurs and profits but passive interest income. Plenty of people live off their capital without contributing anything, except perhaps by bringing in capital to produce things we don’t need. Gesell aimed for a society where capital has no privilege, so where there is no passive capital income, but where people can put their talents to good use and are rewarded for taking risks and making the right decisions. And if we terminate the bullshit economy, which includes status products like €200,000 mousetraps, that could create a fairer economy.

Fulfilling work

Marx further said that producing for markets alienates us from what we make. Many workers experience this. It is why Dilbert comics are so successful. Marx claimed we could be free, creative beings, but the modern, technologically developed world dictates our lives. Marx believed that ending the market mechanism and replacing it with democratic planning would liberate us. So if workers received what they owed and we replaced capitalism with democratic planning, we would live in a paradise where we could do the jobs we like and have everything we need.

That is a silly idea. There will be long lines of people who wish to be actresses, but few want to be cleaners. Likewise, communes don’t attract farmers and construction workers, but artists and Reiki healers. We need food and homes, not art and quacks. Work is doing something useful. If it isn’t useful, it isn’t work, but a hobby. Even if everyone contributes, planning will never do as well as markets. You could live with that if you have enough and have no worries. You might want a pear, but you could settle for an apple. And you have heard of oranges but never tasted one.

Capitalism causing misery

Marxists claim that capitalism causes misery as adding capital means doing more with fewer workers, which reduces the need for labour, pushing wages below the subsistence level and leaving workers to starve. In the 19th century, most economists believed wages would remain close to the subsistence level. If wages increased, more people would survive, expanding the labour supply. That would cause wages to decrease, so that more people would starve. The market would keep population levels in check. Marxists argue that making more stuff with fewer people was impossible because the unemployed couldn’t buy it. So, there would be either underconsumption or overproduction.

Marx himself held a slightly different view. Capitalist production occurs only if it is profitable. The drive for more production undermines the profitability of that production, Marx believed. Capitalists compete against each other to gain market share and a larger share of profits appropriated from workers. To gain an advantage, they resort to labour-saving technology to reduce costs and increase labour productivity. Marx argued that profit comes from labour, so investment in machines replacing labour may increase productivity, but at the expense of profitability. It would eventually lead to the halting of production and the layoff of workers. That didn’t happen because of Say’s Law.

Due to higher production efficiency and increased production, items became cheaper, so consumers had money to spend on other items. And humans can create money from thin air. When capitalists produce more, they must sell their merchandise, and, if necessary, they can encourage people to borrow money. And so, the general level of opulence rose. Marx had vastly underestimated human ingenuity in finance, marketing and job creation in the services sector and government, the so-called bullshit jobs in the bullshit economy. These jobs make sense because they solve problems in an increasingly complex society, but didn’t exist before as people lived simpler lives.

Scientific and rational

Marx believed that his theories were scientific and rational. He devised a theory of history using Hegel’s dialectic, arguing that power structures in society reflect economic conditions. To Marx, it was not new ideas challenging the status quo but economic conditions that drove historical change. He would say that the status quo of serfdom in Europe ended because towns challenged it by providing alternative jobs for serfs. Lords had to compete with them for their labour. And so, employer-employee relationships replaced serfdom, which became the new status quo.

Marx also believed nationalism was a temporary phase, imposed by economic conditions. Industrialisation required larger markets, thus societies rather than communities. Nationalism allowed the elites to divide and rule the working class. And because capitalism would eventually bankrupt itself, Marx predicted, as if it were a logical certainty, communism would replace employer-employee relationships, and everyone would become free and equal. In reality, people weren’t free or equal under communism, and a new elite of party bureaucrats replaced the capitalists.

Marx aimed to violently overturn the existing capitalist order through revolution, whereas Hegel believed that the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars had been necessary to replace the feudal or aristocratic order with a new order grounded in European Enlightenment ideals. Karl Marx became the prophet of the most successful cult in recent history. In many ways, Marxism became Christianity without God, by claiming there is a plan behind history, that there will be an End Time, a communist revolution, after which we will live in Paradise. Marx raised concerns that are still valid today:

  • Instead of saying we will enter the communist paradise as a historical necessity, we may argue that the script is that we are about to enter God’s Paradise, which could be a Hegelian synthesis of the Marxist challenge to the existing bourgeois order.
  • Instead of saying capitalists steal value from workers, you can argue that we work to make the rich richer. Despite economic growth in advanced economies, many workers still can hardly get by. And that is not because they are all lazy or stupid.
  • Instead of saying the system alienates us from what we produce, you can argue that we are part of a system over which we have no control. We can’t democratically decide on ending the creative destruction of this planet and humanity.
  • Instead of saying that capitalism causes misery, it has improved billions of lives, at great cost perhaps. Yet it will end in a disaster due to excessive resource consumption or technological development caused by out-of-control competition.

Feature image: A portrait of Karl Marx. Public Domain.

Property Rights

nivtricLeave a comment

Property rights play a central role in economic organisations. The concept originates in agricultural societies. To hunter-gatherers, property has little meaning. A hunter-gatherer band carries hardly any items and moves around to find food, so there was no point in owning things. Owning nothing and being happy was the state of humankind in the Garden of Eden. That changed with agriculture. After the Fall, Adam had to toil to make a living. You aren’t going to work hard to plant and grow crops or to raise and feed livestock if someone else takes them. The protection of property from thieves and other tribes is one reason humans organised themselves into tribes and states. Yet traditional societies usually had no private property. In most cases, family groups or villages held ownership, and clan leaders or elders made decisions.

Privately owned property and individualism became commonplace in Western Europe first. The Church wished to inherit the property of Christians who had no heir. That is harder to do if a clan owns the property, so the Church promoted private property to let the Church inherit the property of Christians who had no heirs. Individual property rights and women’s right to own property led to the end of family groups headed by my male clan leaders. And it promoted individualism.1 In the Middle Ages, after clans had disintegrated, feudal lords held most property, which the Church could inherit. Feudalism was, in principle, a voluntary agreement. Lacking a clan, a serf sought the protection of a lord. A serf had rights, like the right to protection by his lord. The development paved the way for modern capitalism, which led Europe to lead the process of modernisation.

The communist experiment has demonstrated that the absence of property rights causes shortages and sometimes famines. Another argument for property ownership is the tragedy of the commons. Individuals who act out their own self-interest deplete or spoil a shared resource, ruining it for everyone. If you share items like tools with your neighbours, you might run into conflicts if some neighbours care less about them or use them more. All pay for these shared items, but some benefit more than others, and some people might not benefit and only pay. A solution is ownership. Either we all own these items individually, or, if that is more efficient, we rent them from someone who owns them. Collective ownership can work better if there is social trust within the group, which requires members’ trustworthiness. It usually works best with family and friends and, in the past, with clans.

You can look at the role of property from different perspectives. One is the competitiveness of societies. Property rights have made societies more competitive, which is why they have prevailed. If someone else takes away what you make, you stop working. If people work harder, there is more to go around. Another perspective is how property rights contribute to an agreeable society. Property ownership may prevent shortages and famine. Property rights are often limited. One reason is to protect other people’s property. If you own a plot of land between other homes, you may not be able to build the home you like. Then you pay property taxes. And so ownership is often incomplete. And somehow, most property ends up in the hands of a few, who come to control society, making it less agreeable to others. Billionaires now determine what happens.

The problem we face is that societies function poorly without property. The pursuit of personal gain motivates us to work and be productive. Yet, property rights as they are now, and the pursuit of profit that comes from them, are among the ingredients in the toxic cocktail that is about to terminate humankind. Working hard to get ahead as we do now is suicide, while removing the incentive to be productive is disastrous. And interest income, so the leeching by the rich, is bleeding societies, while complexity is increasingly weighing on us in the form of rules and taxes, and the costs more often outweigh the benefits. That is why we must make the economic reward system align with the goals of our survival and contribution to society, including the role of property.

Featured image: screenshot from a WEF video promoting sharing items like cars

1. The Origins of Political Order. Francis Fukuyama (2011). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

The Price of Money

nivtricLeave a comment

Interest: the price of money

When a book is €7 in France, what does that mean? If it is $8 in the United States, is it more expensive there than in France? It depends on the exchange rates of the dollar and the euro. If the dollar is worth €0.80, then $8 equals €6.40, which is less than €7. The exchange rates of the euro and the dollar depend on supply and demand in the foreign exchange market. However, the price of money is not the same as the price of currencies.

When economists talk about the price of money, they mean the interest rate. The supply and demand for funds determine the interest rate, as well as the available funds for lending and the demanded funds for borrowing. When many want to borrow and few plan to lend, the interest rate rises. When only a few want to borrow, or when a lot of funds are available for lending, the interest rate drops.

Economists distinguish between money and capital markets. Money markets provide short-term funding, typically less than a year, whereas capital markets provide long-term financing. Several factors affect the supply and demand of funds in the money and capital markets. These are:

  • Ordinary people value the present over the future, and the degree to which we do affects the interest rate. They suffer from time preference.
  • Capitalists are very special people. They save and invest anyway, even at low interest rates. They are endowed with a capitalist spirit.
  • Returns on other investments affect the money and capital markets because they must be attractive relative to alternatives.

Time preference

Suppose you are a hatter and have just sold a hat for €50. You could rush to the nearest phone shop and buy that fancy phone cover you saw yesterday. Alternatively, you could save up to buy a new smartphone later, once you have sold more hats. You could even save for your retirement. The odds are that the money will be gone before the month is over, and that you have acquired a phone cover or some other gewgaw. If this applies to you, economists will diagnose you with a condition called time preference.

Economists assume that we have a time preference, meaning we prefer to satisfy our desires now rather than later. You want the latest smartphone model now rather than later, and you may even wish to borrow money to buy it now. Individual time preferences vary. Your time preference is the degree to which you value the present above the future, which you can express in an interest rate. If the market interest rate is above your time preference, you save, and if it is below, you borrow.

Time preferences differ for different people. Mary may save if interest rates are above 4%, and borrow once they are lower. John may save as long as interest rates are above 6% and borrow when they are below 6%. Alex might save if interest rates are above 5%, but may not borrow if interest rates are below 5%. The result is that as interest rates rise, the supply of funds for lending increases and the demand for funds for borrowing decreases. The market interest rate will be where supply and demand are equal.

Capitalist spirit

Time preference is an ailment plaguing ordinary people. Their designated role in the economy is to consume. Other people think differently. Economists have diagnosed them with a condition called a capitalist spirit, which is the opposite of time preference. They are the capitalists. Capitalists believe that money spent on a frivolous item is money wasted. That is because if you save and invest your money, you will end up with more money to reinvest.

Capitalists don’t suffer from time preference. Their designated role is to invest. And so, they end up with a lot of money when they die. What’s the point of that? Capitalists invest in businesses that make the frivolous items ordinary people consume. Ordinary people wouldn’t have invested their money. They would have spent it on frivolous items instead, so that these items wouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Capitalists have a lot of money. They don’t stop investing when interest rates are lower. They can’t help themselves. They have a capitalist spirit, just as ordinary people can’t help themselves because of their time preference. When they run out of things to invest in, they lend their money at lower interest rates. Again, it is the law of supply and demand at work. If capitalists have a lot of money while other people cannot borrow because they can’t afford to pay the interest, interest rates drop.

Investment returns

There is no point in investing if you don’t get more in return. These returns end up as corporate dividends or as rent from real estate. If these returns are high, you may prefer investing over lending. Investing is risky. If sales are sluggish, corporations may cut their dividends, but lenders still get their interest. When a business goes bankrupt, lenders receive their money first, while investors get what’s left over. And that could be nothing.

When someone wants to borrow money from you, the interest rate must be attractive compared to the investments you can make. Otherwise, you may prefer to invest and receive dividends and rents despite the risks. In this way, interest rates on other investments affect those on loans. Banks dominate the markets for borrowing and lending, so we choose between investing and keeping a deposit at a bank.

Risk

When you lend out your money, the borrower may not repay. So, if a stranger wants to borrow some money from you, she could offer you a high interest rate so that you might think, ‘I don’t know her, but she may pay back, and the interest rate is attractive, so I’ll do it.’ Money can lose value due to inflation, so inflation is another risk for the lender. If the money that buys a smartphone today only buys a phone cover a few years later, you spend that money on a smartphone right now. That is, unless someone wants to borrow your money from you and offers a high enough interest rate, so that you save for a newer model that you expect to need a few years down the line.

A bank’s business is to know its customers, so lending to a bank is usually less risky than lending to an individual or a company. When you have money in a bank account, you have lent it to your bank. Banks are supposed to be good at managing risk, so you accept a lower interest rate on your deposit than you would on a loan to an individual or a corporation. Banks know their customers well and lend to many different customers, so they can manage their risks and lend at lower interest rates than you could. Interest is the price paid for distrust. If investors trust the debtors and the value of the money, they expect inflation to be low, which means interest rates are lower.

The government and the central bank play a central role in limiting banking risk. Banks charge interest on loans, which leaves debtors short of money. That is, unless depositors spend their money or someone else borrows the principal plus the interest. Like other Ponzi schemes, the usury scheme collapsed from time to time, leading to defaults and economic hardship. To prevent that, the government borrows money, and the central bank prints it into existence, bringing it into circulation so debtors can repay their debts with interest. But with governments and central banks propping up the usury scheme, debts continue to grow, which may eventually lead to a usury-financial apocalypse.

Convenience

When you lend your money to someone else, you can’t use it yourself. There may be a new smartphone you want to buy, but alas, you have lent out your money. That is inconvenient. Then you remember with a smile that you will have the phone and a hip phone cover next year because you received interest. So, if you don’t receive interest on your money, you may not bother lending it out because you may need it.

When you deposit money at a bank, you lend it to the bank, but you can still use it at any time. If you use that money to pay for legal advice, it ends up in the lawyer’s account, and the bank borrows it from the lawyer until she uses it to pay the barber. Having cash on hand is convenient. Economists call this liquidity preference. We accept low interest rates on current accounts because they are as convenient as cash.

Properties of money

The properties of money can affect interest rates. Imagine that apples are money, and you save to buy a house. If someone wants to borrow 1,000 apples from you and promises to pay back 1,000 apples after 5 years, when you plan to buy the home, you probably accept this generous offer. You may even accept an offer of 900 apples, since that is better than letting your apples rot. In this case, you would settle for a negative interest rate.

You would only do so if you have no better alternatives. If you can make 10% per year in the stock market with Apple stock because their gadgets are in great demand and outrageously expensive, you would exchange your apples for Apple stock. It doesn’t matter if the apples rot. If someone wants to borrow money from you, you demand interest. Our money rots, even though not as much as apples. We call it inflation.

If the money had been gold, you wouldn’t accept the offer, even when the stock market is doing terribly. You can keep your gold in a safe deposit box, and you have 0% interest. Similarly, you wouldn’t accept negative interest rates on euros or dollars because you can take banknotes and store them in a safe deposit box. If many people do so, that interrupts the circular flows, and the economy may suffer.

Discounting

Discounting is about determining the present value of future money using the interest rate. When interest rates are above zero, one euro in the present is worth more than one in the future. That is because you can receive interest on that euro. If the interest rate is 5%, one euro turns into €1.05 in a year. In other words, €1,050 over a year is worth €1,000 today, so the present value of €1,050 over a year is €1,000.

How much is a cash flow of €1,000 in a year worth in the present? That is the reverse calculation. The formula for the present value of a single future cash flow is:

Present Value = Future Cashflow / (1 + (Interest Rate / 100)) ^ Number of Years

If there are multiple future cash flows, you add up their present values. An example can illustrate this. Assume that the interest rate on government bonds is 3%, and you own a 5% government bond that still has two years to go before the principal of €1,000 will be repaid. You will also receive €50 in interest after one year and another €50 in two years when the principal is due.

If you plan to sell the bond today, you want to know its present value. There are two cash flows. You will first receive €50 after one year. The present value of that cash flow is: €50 / (1 + (3 / 100)) ^ 1 = €48.54. After two years, you will receive an additional €1,050. The present value of that amount is: €1,050 / (1 + (3 / 100)) ^ 2 = €989.73. And so the present value of the bond is €48.54 + €989.73 = €1,038.27.

At higher interest rates, the value of the bond declines. If the interest rate is 5%, its present value is (€50 / (1 + (5 / 100)) ^ 1) + €1,050 / (1 + (5 / 100)) ^ 2 = €47.62 + €952.38 = €1000 exactly, which is to be expected. At lower interest rates, the bond will be worth more. At an interest rate of 2%, the present value is (€50 / (1 + (2 / 100)) ^ 1) + €1,050 / (1 + (2 / 100)) ^ 2 = €49.02 + €1,009.23 = €1,058.25.

At lower interest rates, bonds are worth more. That is also true for other assets that generate cash flows, such as stocks and real estate. The present value of the future dividends and rents increases when interest rates decline. When interest rates are lower, people can borrow more for a home, so that house prices may go up.

Engine of growth

Credit means trust. When you invest, you expect to receive a profit. You anticipate something that isn’t there yet. You imagine that it will be there in the future. In the past five hundred years, trust in the future mostly paid off. If you don’t trust the future, you put your money in a piggy bank or invest in something that keeps its value during an economic collapse, such as gold or land. Banks create money out of thin air, believing that the debtor’s future revenues will pay for the principal and the interest.

That is why the economy must grow. It is the growth imperative promoted by interest charges. When expectations fail to materialise, investors stop investing, and interest payments on existing debt damage the economy by sucking money out of the circular flows. When growth is lacking, governments and central banks keep the economy afloat by going into debt or printing currency and bringing these funds into circulation. When money circulates, businesses profit, employ people, and pay interest.

Interest keeps the economy going by making those with a surplus lend it to those with a deficit. That is why economists think that banning interest will cause an economic disaster. When economic growth is low and expectations aren’t met, investors stop investing, and the money stops flowing. Had the money been perishable like apples, they would still invest, even when returns were low, or lend their money at a negative rate. We see that happening. After accounting for inflation, interest rates are often negative.

Featured image: Ara Economicus. Beverly Lussier (2004). Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

1919 Cover of The Natural Economic Order

Feasibility of Interest-Free Demurrage Currency

nivtricLeave a comment

Setup

Natural Money is an interest-free demurrage currency. It features a holding fee on currency and a maximum interest rate of zero on money and loans. The Natural Money currency is an accounting unit only, as the holding fee, which may range from 0.5% to 1% per month, makes the currency unattractive to hold. Therefore, the currency will not circulate, nor will someone invest in it. Cash, bank deposits, bonds, stocks, real estate, and other investments aren’t currency and therefore not subject to the holding fee. Not paying the holding fee and the curtailment of credit, and thereby inflation, caused by the maximum interest rate, can make lending at negative interest rates attractive.

Natural Money features a separation between regular banking, also known as commercial banking, which involves lending and borrowing, and investment banking, also referred to as participation banking, which involves participating in businesses. Regular banks guarantee returns to their depositors and use their capital to cover losses. Participating banks have shareholders who share in the profits and the losses. These two bank types should remain separated, even though one bank might offer both in distinct accounts. A commercial bank’s funds should be used only for lending. The maximum interest rate limits lending, allowing equity to replace debt in the financial system.

Evidence from history

There is little historical data on the subject of interest-free demurrage currency. Financial systems founded on interest-free money with a holding fee have never existed. There were holding fees and interest bans, but the combination of both has never existed. More importantly, a usury-free financial system requires a high-trust society founded on moral values where investments are safe, and is only feasible with the help of several relatively modern financial innovations. That all seems too good to be true, but we can have dreams. And so, the evidence from history is of limited value.

Several ancient societies have seen usury-induced economic crises. Extreme wealth inequality, often accelerated by usurious lending, regularly coincided with societal collapses. It is a recurring pattern that has existed since time immemorial. The Sumerians were already familiar with charging interest and its disastrous social consequences. Sumerian rulers began implementing debt jubilees as early as 2,400 BC, cancelling debts and freeing debt slaves. Other cultures, such as those in Israel, have banned charging interest. Israel also had debt jubilees every fifty years.

The Egyptian grain-backed currency existed for over 1,000 years, suggesting it provided monetary stability. Nevertheless, ancient Egypt has seen economic crises, often due to droughts causing crop failures, high taxation during warfare, or a weakening central government. The government mitigated famines with its grain reserves, but prolonged famines depleted these facilities, leading to civil unrest and, sometimes, a collapse of order. There is no evidence of social benefits of this money for Egyptian society. Charging interest was common, and Egypt had debt cancellations.

In the Middle Ages, the Church forbade charging interest. Christians, like Jews, were each other’s brothers and couldn’t charge each other interest. When economic life became more developed, the ban on interest became difficult to enforce. In the 14th century, partnerships emerged where creditors received a share of the profits from a business venture. As long as the share remained profit-dependent, it was not illegal, as it was a participation in a business rather than lending at interest.1 Islamic finance works with similar principles.2

In the 17th and 18th centuries, interest ceilings replaced bans. To circumvent the interest ceilings, a creditor and debtor could secretly agree on a fraud, whereby the creditor handed over less money than stated in the loan contract, so that the borrower actually paid more interest.3 More recent experiences with Regulation Q in the United States, which imposed maximum interest rates on bank accounts, suggest that a maximum interest rate is enforceable only if it does not significantly impact the bulk of borrowing and lending.4

An effective ban on usury requires a society grounded in moral values rather than profit. It requires us to live modestly and within the planet’s limits. It also requires societies to care for vulnerable individuals, so that they don’t fall prey to usurers. You shouldn’t charge interest, not merely because it is illegal, but because it contributes to something profoundly evil. That points to a broader problem. We should care about the world and consider the consequences of our actions. Even when what we do is legal, it doesn’t mean that it is good.

Implementation

To implement Natural Money, interest rates must already be low or negative. Attempting to lower interest rates when market conditions don’t justify that move would likely scare investors. Low interest rates require trust, which requires financial discipline, including fiscal discipline from governments. That doesn’t equal austerity, since governments earn interest on their debts when interest rates are negative. The transition preferably is a gradual process that the authorities communicate in advance. Whether that is possible at all remains to be seen, as the implementation may occur in exceptional times.

If there is still a functional currency, the first step is for the government to balance the budget. The second step is to decouple cash currency from the administrative or central bank currency. The move encompasses retiring central bank-issued banknotes and replacing them with treasury-issued banknotes. Not everyone will hurry to a local bank office to exchange banknotes, so the central bank-issued banknotes must be exchangeable at par for the new banknotes for a considerable period.

As long as interest rates are significantly above zero, a holding fee won’t bring them down. Setting a maximum interest rate can lower interest rates by curtailing credit, thereby cooling the economy. To avoid disrupting financial markets, the implementation must be gradual. The maximum interest rate should be high enough to avoid disrupting the economy. Initially, authorities could set the holding fee at a low percentage, or not at all. As interest rates fall, authorities can lower them.

The zero lower bound is a minimum interest rate. It operates like a price control by preventing interest rates from moving freely to the rate where supply and demand for money and capital balance. That is to the advantage of the wealthy, as they can take the economy hostage by demanding a minimum return on their investments. When returns are low, investors may prefer cash over investments, which can hinder an economic recovery. Economists call it liquidity preference.

Low interest rates can prompt lenders to seek higher yields and take on more risk. Low interest rates allow borrowers to take on more debt. Low interest rates can promote investments that become unprofitable when the economy slows down. A maximum interest rate can prevent these situations from happening. A maximum interest rate caps the risk lenders are willing to take and promotes a deleveraging of balance sheets, so that even low-yielding ventures don’t go bankrupt because of interest-bearing debts.

Issues with the maximum interest rate

A holding fee will cause few difficulties, but a maximum interest rate is more problematic. Insofar as the maximum interest rate affects questionable segments of credit, such as credit card debt and subprime lending, this is beneficial overall. More serious issues can emerge with financing small and medium-sized businesses. Partnership schemes can fill in the gap, but it is hard to predict how that will play out. The maximum yield on loans is zero, making partnerships more attractive, as they can offer higher returns.

There may be objections to the limits Natural Money imposes on consumer credit. Still, there is little doubt that a maximum interest rate can improve consumers’ purchasing power, as borrowers won’t have to pay interest. As a result, there are fewer borrowing options, which may lead to the emergence of black markets. To make illegal schemes unattractive for lenders, lenders who charge interest could lose the money they have lent.

Zero is the only non-arbitrary number, making it more difficult to change the maximum interest rate. That may happen for political or other reasons. The salespeople of usury can find plenty. If it is one, why not two? Zero is a clear line. A positive interest rate, no matter how small, contributes to financial instability. All positive growth rates compound to infinity, so once we start the fire of usury, it will eventually consume us.

A maximum interest rate seems feasible if it is above the rate at which most borrowing and lending occur, thereby limiting the effects on liquidity in the fixed-income market. A maximum interest rate creates room for alternatives, such as private equity and partnership schemes. These alternatives can supplement the fixed-income market and mitigate the effects of the maximum interest rate. A maximum interest rate is beneficial overall if it mainly affects questionable segments of credit, such as subprime lending.

In the case of bonds, the maximum interest rate of zero applies at the time of issuance. Due to economic circumstances or issues with the debtor, the interest rate may rise and enter positive territory. Likewise, governments may issue long-term bonds that may have positive yields if interest rates rise later on. That is not a serious issue, as long as the interest rate was zero or lower at the time of issuance.

A more serious issue is the risk of liquidity problems. When interest rates rise, less credit becomes available at interest rates of zero or lower. Interest rates might increase due to a strong economy with inflationary pressures. There are always economic agents that must borrow at all costs to meet their present obligations, so if they can’t borrow, they might go bankrupt. Businesses and individuals need to deleverage and arrange credit in advance, such as an overdraft facility, with their banks.

Another equally serious question is the profitability of banks with Natural Money. The lending business of banks will likely shrink significantly. The assumption is that risk-free lending will be profitable. But what if it isn’t? In that case, banks may need to lower the interest rates on deposit accounts to a level below the interest rate on short-term government debt. In that case, the cash interest rate may need to be lower than the interest rate on short-term government debt to make it work.

Inherent stability

Ending usury is impossible without investors having trust in the political economy or the political and economic institutions of the polity issuing the currency. The most trusted political economies have the lowest interest rates because their governments are fiscally responsible. Natural Money requires taking it to the next level. With Natural Money, to borrow, the government must find lenders willing to lend in the currency at negative interest rates. The government will be better off borrowing at negative interest rates, which provides an incentive for budgetary discipline. That is the foundation of stability.

Extracting a fixed income from a variable income stream contributes to financial instability. Fixed interest payments can bankrupt a corporation even when it is profitable overall. Interest contributes to moral hazard, as it serves as a reward for taking risks. Investors expect to earn higher yields on riskier debt, so lenders take on these risks. The more uncertain an income source, the higher the interest rate needs to be to compensate for the risk of lending, but the higher the fixed interest rate, the more likely failure becomes, which reveals the destructive consequence of interest being a reward for taking risks.

All parts of the financial system are intertwined. Individual banks can transfer these risks to the system. And so, the risk management of individual agents can increase the overall level of risk in the system. The payment and lending system is a key public interest, so governments and central banks back it. Banks take risks and reap rewards in the form of interest, while public guarantees back up the financial system. The arrangement leads to moral hazard, a mispricing of risk and private profits at the expense of the public. A maximum interest rate can end these problems.

A maximum interest rate causes a deleveraging and a reduction in problematic debts, which has a stabilising effect on the financial system and the economy. Individuals and businesses must already take action before their debts become problematic. Maximum interest rates can distort financial markets. Most notably, there will be fewer options for smaller firms to borrow. Partnership schemes should fill that void.

Interest payments also affect business cycles. The mainstream view is that central banks should raise interest rates during economic booms to curb investment and spending, thereby preventing the economy from overheating. A rosy view of the future prevails during a boom, so higher interest rates seem justified and borrowing continues for some time. When the bust sets in, the picture alters, and an overhang of debt at high interest rates worsens the woes. It would have been better if these debts hadn’t existed in the first place.

That makes a usury-based financial system inherently unstable. Natural Money changes this dynamic. When the economy improves, higher interest rates increase the attractiveness of equity investments relative to debt. That reduces the funds available for lending. The curtailment of credit will prevent the economy from overheating and avoid a debt overhang. When the economy slows, negative interest rates provide stimulus. In the absence of a debt overhang, the economy is likely to recover soon. A Natural Money financial system is inherently stable.

Featured image: 1919 Cover of The Natural Economic Order. Wikimedia Commons.

1. Simon Smith Kuznets, Stephanie Lo, Eric Glen Weyl (2009). The Doctrine of Usury in the Middle Ages. Simon Smith Kuznets, transcribed by Stephanie Lo. An appendix to Simon Kuznets: Cautious Empiricist of the Eastern European Jewish Diaspora.
2. Sekreter, Ahmet (2011). Sharing of Risks in Islamic Finance. IBSU Scientific Journal, 5(2): 13-20.
3. K. Samuelsson (1955). International Payments and Credit Movements by the Swedish Merchant Houses, 1730-1815. Scandinavian Economic History Review.
4. R. Alton Gilbert (1986). Requiem for Regulation Q: What It Did and Why It Passed Away. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Amish family, Lyndenville, New York. Public domain.

Economic Development

nivtricLeave a comment

Before the Industrial Revolution

Before the Industrial Revolution began in England, European crafts and sciences had already advanced. During the Middle Ages, inventions such as gunpowder, eyeglasses, the compass, the printing press, the mechanical clock, the windmill, and the spinning wheel had reached Europe from China or the Middle East. What made Europe culturally different was its individualism. In the 14th and 15th centuries, a new spirit emerged in Italian merchant towns like Venice, Florence, and Genoa. It was the spirit of the merchant which subsequently spread throughout Europe.

And so, Europeans gradually abandoned their traditional Christian values and developed a capitalist spirit by pursuing worldly wealth and pleasure rather than modesty and bliss in the afterlife. There were merchants elsewhere, but the populace held them in low regard because of their depraved ethics, as greed was their core value. It was the pursuit of profit that drove European explorations and colonialism. Making money became the new moral virtue, alongside inquisitiveness, creating a dynamic that would change the world.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, Europeans explored the world and invented the microscope, the steam turbine, the telescope, and the steam pump. Modern science began when Nicolaus Copernicus calculated the trajectories of the planets by assuming that they revolved around the Sun. Isaac Newton later formulated the laws of motion. Europeans expanded their colonial empires, thereby increasing the size of their markets, a prerequisite for the mass production that industrialisation was to bring.

The British were the most successful. Supported by a strong navy, they built the largest colonial empire. They also invented modern banking, creating money out of thin air or financing capital by imagining future revenues. In 1689, the British had the Glorious Revolution, which, like many revolutions, was about taxation. Businesspeople then took over the government. Taxation henceforth required the consent of the taxed, thus, property owners. And the state became a venture of the propertied classes, like the Dutch Republic, the wealthiest nation at the time, already was.

The taxpayers didn’t like to pay for ineptitude and corruption, so the quality of the British state improved, and the state used its military to support the colonial business ventures of the propertied classes. Great Britain had easily accessible coal deposits and developed a large coal mining industry. Due to a lack of firewood, coal had become England’s primary heating source. As mine pits grew deeper, they became prone to flooding. With no transport costs, a coal-fired steam engine to pump water out of the mine became cheaper than manually pumping with buckets.

Ignition

Trade with the colonies promoted British industries, resulting in high living standards and wages in England. In England, coal was easily accessible, so energy was cheap. In Great Britain, the aristocracy had an entrepreneurial spirit and paid taxes, making the British government a reliable borrower. Banking innovations, most notably the creation of money, made British capital markets more efficient. And so, Great Britain had low interest rates, so a low price for capital. The first machines were clumsy and inefficient, but high wages, cheap capital and affordable energy made them profitable.

This combination of factors is why the Industrial Revolution started in England rather than elsewhere. Wages in France were lower, while the banking system was less developed. The rent-seeking French aristocracy didn’t pay taxes, making the French government an unreliable borrower. Thus, interest rates in France were higher. Once the first machines were in operation, inventing new ones or improving existing ones became profitable, so British engineers got busy enhancing the steam engine’s efficiency and inventing contraptions like the spinning jenny and the cotton gin.

The fuel consumption of steam engines dropped from 44 pounds of coal per horsepower-hour in 1727 to 3 pounds in 1847, making it economical to use the steam engine for other purposes, such as trains. The dramatically improved fuel efficiency, combined with other improvements, made it economical to mechanise production elsewhere where wages were lower, interest rates were higher, or energy was more expensive. That allowed the Industrial Revolution to spread to other countries.1

It was a watershed moment. Until then, inventions were rare. Scientists made them out of curiosity. However, from then on, the profit motive generated a permanent drive to pursue knowledge and new technologies and to invent new products. In this way, economising through innovation and scale became a constant, unstoppable process that economists call creative destruction. Factories needed scale to operate profitably, while inventions birthed new industries and made others obsolete.

Humans have started a fire in their midst that continues to grow. We can’t stop it. A classic book on the Industrial Revolution used at universities is David Landes’ The Unbound Prometheus. According to Greek mythology, Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans. The Greek supreme deity, Zeus, punished him for his act. The story parallels the biblical story of the Fall. The Industrial Revolution unleashed the unlimited fire of the gods that will devour us.

Since the Industrial Revolution, the general level of opulence has risen dramatically, though it was hardly noticeable at first. Industrialisation made craftspeople in the clothing industry destitute as they couldn’t compete with factories. Everyone else profited from cheaper cloth. Mechanisation made existing products like cloth more affordable, so people had money to spend on new products like light bulbs, making investing in new inventions profitable. Economists call it Say’s Law. More supply generates new demand.

Due to these innovations, production costs decreased, and industrialisation became profitable where wages were lower, energy was more expensive or interest rates were higher. Industrialisation first took off in Europe and North America, but not elsewhere. One reason is that Europeans had become innovation-minded and eagerly adopted new technologies like railroads and telegraphs. These first technologies were simple, thus easy to apply, but the Chinese and others remained reluctant to use them.2

Standard development recipe

Western Europe followed quickly, helped by the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte’s reforms. The French Revolution wiped out the corrupt old French regime and replaced it with a modernised, efficient bureaucracy. The aristocrats lost their power. The French introduced civil registries, rationalised the law code, standardised weights and measures by introducing the metric system with kilograms and metres, and made everyone drive on the right side of the road. Napoleon’s armies then spread these reforms over Europe. Napoleon did to Europe what the first Chinese emperor did to China 2,000 years earlier. Both reigned shortly but left a lasting legacy.

Countries Napoleon didn’t conquer, such as Great Britain, continued to drive on the wrong side of the road and use arcane measures like miles and ounces. And only in Great Britain do aristocrats still influence politics through the House of Lords. To catch up, Western Europe and the United States followed a standard recipe consisting of the following elements:

  • Creating a national market by eliminating internal tariffs and building railroads.
  • Developing domestic industries by using external tariffs.
  • Instituting banks to finance investments and stabilise the national currency.
  • Establishing a mass education system to upgrade the labour force.

These measures had enormous social consequences, which we now refer to as modernisation. Societies came to replace communities. It was the age of nationalism. With the help of mass education, everyone learned the national language, and local dialects disappeared. People learned to identify with their nation rather than their kin and village. The outcome was that modern humans rely on markets and the state more than on their family and community.

Other countries implemented the same recipe but with modifications due to local economic factors. Factory layouts that operated at a profit in Europe were loss-making elsewhere. If energy were expensive, the operation would become more cost-effective using fewer machines and more labour. Japan was the first non-Western country to follow. The Japanese had to deal with local circumstances. High interest rates made investment capital expensive, so Japanese factories held no stockpiles of raw materials and semi-finished products but let their suppliers make them when needed. So, when interest rates rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Western industries couldn’t compete with Japan.

There are varying views on why industrialisation succeeded in some countries but not in others. If you dare to generalise, you can make the following observations:

  • East Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and later China modernised successfully. They had a sense of nation and experience with rational government administration. Their bureaucrats and businesspeople successfully implemented modernisation projects.
  • Latin American countries were less successful. They were former colonies lacking national identities. Their white elites neglected the education of indigenous people. There were a few large estates and hardly any small-scale farmers. Wealth inequality prevented the development of a middle class.
  • The Soviet Union modernised with the help of state planning. Industrialisation of heavy industries succeeded, allowing the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany. Agricultural reforms were a disaster, and consumer products were of poor quality. By the 1970s, it became clear the Soviet Union couldn’t keep up with the West.
  • Several countries in the Middle East modernised with dictators implementing socialist development models based on the experiences in the Soviet Union. Some Arab countries became wealthy from oil revenues. Few countries in the Middle East have developed industries that compete in international markets.
  • Africa lagged. African borders didn’t match the tribes living there, so there was no sense of nationhood. There have never been states in most of Africa. European colonisers ended traditional forms of government and property rights, contributing to poor governance and corruption. Africans started with a disadvantage.

Industrial politics

There are requirements for a modern economy, though a country doesn’t need to meet all of them. A capable government and an educated workforce can turn a situation around. Japan has few natural resources, but has become one of the most advanced countries in the world. It was the first non-Western country to industrialise. Japan was also lucky. After World War II, it had access to US markets because it was a close ally of the United States, which needed it to help it export its way into prosperity. Argentina had fertile land and was one of the wealthiest countries by 1900, but it has since then gone downhill. To successfully modernise, a country probably needs:

  • a capable government that understands economics and is business-friendly
  • an educated workforce as workers must read, write and use technology
  • businesspeople, investment capital, and sufficiently ensured property rights
  • a large enough market, thus a sizeable middle class
  • an industrial policy, thus picking industries to compete in international markets, helping to develop them, and supporting them with tariffs or subsidies

There are several kinds of industrial politics. Neo-liberal politics aim to pursue economic growth by promoting trade, lowering taxes, and reducing regulations. Unrestricted trade allows areas and people to specialise and compete to produce more and better products, enhancing overall opulence. It also promotes a race to the bottom at the expense of our future. Industries go where wages are lowest or where they can dump their waste and avoid paying for government services.

Making the economy sustainable and people-friendly also requires industrial policies, such as reducing competition and introducing regulations and controls. And it requires ending imports from countries that don’t adhere to the same ethical standards. A sustainable, people-friendly economy can only exist on a level playing field with other economies that adhere to the same standards. These measures increase costs and reduce living standards. An extreme case is the Old Order Amish. They choose to be self-sufficient and live simple lives. Their economic model resembles community economics.

Community economics aims to enable people in a community to help each other by buying and selling goods and services using local currencies. It never became a worldwide success because communities lack the scale for self-sufficiency. There is also a lack of commitment, which is something the Amish do have. Few people barter their labour or goods in their community if they can get better deals elsewhere. Commitment is vital. Without it, there will be black markets with merchants smuggling in illicit goods.

Featured image: Amish family, Lyndenville, New York. Public domain.

1. The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Robert C. Allen (2014). Cambridge University Press.
2. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.