Back to
Homepage HELLO FELLOWS:
A HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009
from the
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ORGANIZATION RESEARCH -
IIFOR
http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html
Updated
As a contrast to the governmental propaganda presented at New Years Eve the IIFOR research editors have made a "hard hitting" alternative to entertain and inspirit the hard working people of the international media, anarchists and authorities world wide. The Anarchy of Norway is well known for oil and hydro-electric power, but sometimes (very rare) we also can demonstrate some intellectual power: A SHORT NOTE ON THE GENERAL THEORY OF ANARCHIST ECONOMICS. As a journalist put it: In this industry of dubious standards, it's been great working with the IIFOR, who contrary to the countless jibes of mediocre profets all over the world, are real professionals, and eminent to work with. At NRK TV we have something called "Julenøtter", Christmas Nuts, i.e. quiz... Here is a real nut for you to puzzle with, and "Das Fazit" is included.
The note shows the real relations between the main economical indicators, and demonstrates how Keynes and Say, neoclassical economics, Walras included, as well as monetarism, may be considered as special cases of ANARCHIST ECONOMICS, the mother-model of all real economics, based on practically always valid equations. Even marxist economics can be seen as a special case, but "leider" only with assumptions of a "flat" economical political world, far from realities. The main research results in 2002-8 were a.o.t. further development of ecocirc relations of systems and bureaucracy costs, IIFOR's labor market paradox, and about the oilindustry. More of the updated research is presented at http://www.anarchy.no/aneco1.html .
This report is written in Norwegian and English as well as simple mathematical formulas, so it should be understandable world wide to all people that have finished high school with an A or B. Furthermore, it is rooted back to Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker and Santillan, as well as the Norwegian economical Nobel prize winners Frisch and Haavelmo, and others. Here you are fellows: The most revolutionary short note on economics you have ever seen.
For a crude translation form Norwegian to English, click on http://translate.google.com/translate_t#
A SHORT NOTE ON THE GENERAL THEORY OF ANARCHIST ECONOMICS
If you don't understand Scandinavian/Norwegian, try the translation tool at http://www.anarchy.no/anarchy/links.html
Resolusjon fra Anarkistbiennalen 1992 (Det 2. internasjonale IFA/FICEDL kongress-seminaret i Oslo/ANORGs 11. Oppdatert 2003)
ABOUT THE CONCEPTS AND WORDS USED IN THIS CONTEXT
The system theory of anarchist political economy and social organization research and the economic-political map , presented at http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html and mathematically at http://www.anarchy.no/formula.html should be seen in the context of the economic-political sociology and industrial organization research at http://www.anarchy.no/klasse.html and the general theory of anarchist economics at this site, i.e. http://www.anarchy.no/aneco1.html , as well as the praxeological research referred in International Journal of Organization Research , see http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html , http://www.anarchy.no/folkebladet.html and the most of the rest of the http://www.anarchy.no files. And this is just a summary of the research at the International Institute for Organization Research at URL http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html .
These pages have several words that are well known to highly educated people. However people at large are educated, but not highly. If you want to see the definition of a word or phrase used in this context, try first to search in the mentioned html-files. Secondly, if you want more information, try the anarchist search engine powered by Google at www.anarchy.no . Third, if you have problems with understanding words that are not defined at the AIIS web-pages, try , say, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ .
If you, after doing the best to understand, still have problems learning the material, click on http://www.anarchy.no/au.html for help. If you have questions about the research and/or want more results, click on http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html . Anarchism is a.o.t. based on dialog, and free - matter of fact - criticism. To achieve this, it is necessary to understand what it is all about. A minimum basic knowledge to be taken seriously in a debate on anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism is probably the material at the above mentioned links, i.e. a brief summary of the updated research front on anarchism.
SYMBOLS ETC.
[Symbols in English: A export; B import; C consumption, i.e. public + private; I net real investment, i.e. public + private; (C+I+A-B) total demand, i.e. nominally; R = total supply R , net national product, i.e. nominally (R = C+I+A-B); p price level for x, x net national product volume principally measured by output (i.e not input) in private and public sector, (R = px); a averagely workers productivity; r interest rate; K real capital [K(time + 1) = K(time) + I(time)]; N employment, i.e. factual supply equal to factual demand of labor, x = aN; k capital/employment ratio; N(u) unemployment, N(full) full employment, i.e. total work force, potential labor supply, not factual, it is however an aim for society to use the whole potential, N = N(full); w = average wage, for the people. R net national product = realincome R = mR + wN + rK, distribution of realincome, where m = profit margin, i.e. market power coefficient (p - b')/p + scale coefficient ( b' - b )/p, were b' is marginal costs and b is average costs of resources, payments for resources, used to produce x, i.e. m = (p-b')/p + (b'- b )/p = (p- b )/p), where b = (wN+rK)/x, and b' = d(wN+rK)/dx. 100% anarchy means zero market power (and a reasonable = optimal high N(full) = N). The scale coefficient reflects general scarcity of resources (positive) vs large scale effects (negative), summa seen all in all, for the whole production in the society, x. M money (or other means of payment, say labor notes credits); v circulation velocity of money (or other means of payment); MU Keynesian multiplier; NAT average workers credit per hour, i.e. "hard currency" in anarchist economics (labor notes credits), M may be measured in NAT or other means of payments, say NOK or US $ (more precise: NAT = average labor-time credits ALC, that must not be mixed up with w, wages, or wN, wage-costs, accounted exclusive all the profit-elements).; t averagely number of work hours per year per employed; o indicates autonomous or initial amount of a variable. w/p is the real wage. R = Gross output value - intermediate input value - depreciation value.]
The market power coefficent reflects the general market power, i.e. p - b' relative to price, of the bureaucracy broadly defined, the degree of monopolistical bureaucratical tendencies of the system seen all in all, both in private and public sector, i.e. based on the general concept of profit included top salaries, fringe benefits etc., "the top above the grassroots remuneration" broadly defined connected to the upper classes (see http://www.anarchy.no/klasse.html ). Thus, b' is principally the real marginal costs, also cut by the so called Leibensteins x-inefficiency ("dead meat" = 'daukjøtt' på norsk, cheat on the work, idleness, parasite, swindler and similar profit, including vaste), which is a part of the general bureaucracy costs = the general profit. That bureaucracy costs = the general profit, is due to the principle of book-keeping by double entry, say, " there is no such thing as a free lunch " - someone has got to pay for it, one way or the other. "Common sence" may say that vaste because of diseconomy, and cheat on the work - "idleness-profit" broadly defined, is not real profit, but that fault is just so because "common sence" has not got the grips on the principle of double book-keeping in an objective, common, societal perspective , i.e.1. not only owners, superiors, sectorial, partial, individual, subjective perspective; but 2. for society, any societal unit, also an individual, seen all in all . This perspective, i.e. 2., in societal book-keeping by double entry, is a main principle in anarchist political economy. Thus, i) - for any unit in society and the society as a whole we see the situations all in all, no stone unturned, including market and environmental products, characteristics and factors, free goods and freedom-factors included, and the economical circulation, budgets, limitations and other relevant relations in this context.In a societal perspective ii) the only benefit is human satisfaction very broadly defined, preferances*, i.e. utility, marginally revealed through correct personal prices, i.e. market prices and/or imaginary (in the meaning of ideal, an image of) market prices, also called shadow, characteristic's or hedonic prices, "the p-vector"; principally correct aggregated in the pricelevel p. Then "px" is principally the general market and environmental turnover broadly defined, - sales, trade and also included environmental, nonmarket-factors, evaluated at the relevant imaginary, hedonic prices, i.e. simulating a free consumer choice situation in an "environmental shop".
Thus, taking into account i) and ii) in a societal perspective, as a part of the "px", profit is a also a cost, similar to wage-cost and capital-cost, payment broadly defined, but it is not payment for resources . Principally, taxonomically, costs may be 1. payment for resources and 2. other payments, i.e. payment not for resources. Thus, dismanagement, disorganization and chaos costs, income forgone , should logically also be book-keeped as a form of "idleness profit", a form of profit, payment, but not payment for resources . As mentioned, generally speaking, m = (p-b')/p + (b'- b )/p = (p- b )/p). But m is not reflecting real economical non-resource payment and costs in a people's perspective, if not defined precisely in the way we have explained above, principally as well as in practice. Under reasonable assumptions, unless special cases, maximal welfare for the people implicates zero market power all over, in general, i.e. optimal pricing => p = b', even if this => m < 0, negative profit, i.e. if there are marginal large scale benefits, negative scale coefficient, because (b' - b ) < 0, that is marginal costs are lower than the average in optimum.
(Here b' is principally social marginal costs including environmental factors and/or externalities, i.e. it may differ from pure business costs, not including environmentet factors correctly evaluated.)This ( m < 0, when p = b' (= optimal pricing) for (b' - b ) < 0) is one of the main reasons why private "free markets" often fails, because for a lot of collective, public and semipublic-goods, as well as for some individual goods, say, from Internet to car production, daycare for children and technology development broadly defined, marginal costs are often less than average costs in optimum. Thus optimal pricing gives negative profit (and bankrupt firms in a "free" market economy in optimum, i.e. soon reduced, disoptimal amount of supply). Furthermore it must be mentioned that x should account for all environmental as well as market and free goods and services, as indicated above. All this indicates a revolution in societal accounting and benefit - cost analysis, in a people's perspective. The usual national and private firm accounting of today, is bureaucratic, not anarchist, democratical, accounting, and thus is wrong in a people's perspective. In an anarchist, real democratic perspective, upper classes profit, i.e.what is above ordinary payment similar to payment of the people, is of no interest to maximize. Furthermore the upper classes are responsible for income forgone due to system errors, environmental faults included, also a form of profit on the one hand and bureaucracy costs, i.e. non-resource payment on the other. From the people's point of view, such vaste and diseconomy because of bad management is equally bad as upper class luxury vaste. Thus, summa profit is mainly a negative factor for the people.The NNP in anarchist economics should be corrected in several ways from the registrated market values of today's (2002) usual bureaucratical national accounting. We cannot go in details here, some "income forgone" should probably be added to the registrated market values both as potential income and on the other side as bureaucracy costs/profit, say, under- and unemployment may be taken into account in this way. This will usually increases "m", of the corrected NNP. Other bureaucracy costs/profit, i.e. most of Leibensteinian x-inefficiency, fringe benefits type profit to the upper classes, "enronism", etc., are hidden in the costs of enterprises, increasing b and b' in an artficial way, and correction thus implies transfers from false "costs" for resources over to the profit account, increasing m in this way, without anything to add on the income side of px = R . In public sector, output instead of input should as mentioned principally be used to estimate x, and the productivity.
Payment, fringe benefits included, to upper classes in public sector above grassroots level, should be accounted for as profit, and thus increase m, related to the corrected NNP, and not be accounted for as wages. Environmental goods can be both positive and negative, output and input. Some more elements of the new accounting are discussed below, but in this short note we must leave many questions on details to further research, also taking into account earlier discussions of related items in societal and national accounting. But the principal questions should be sufficiently clearified here. In the rest of the note we mostly discuss as if these more detail type problems are solved in a relevant way. We have however developed a simplified approximate operational measure of the peoples remuneration, i.e. an estimate of grassroot's average per capita remuneration, and a consistent systems or bureaucracy costs equal to a general profitmargin estimate (see below, at the headline "eureka").The marginal markup (p-b') should more and more be minimalized, market power coefficient set to zero , and if the scale coefficient is positive, marginal larger than average costs in optimum = > positive profit , only reflecting scarcity of resources , this profit should probably be devided among the people and/or invested in real capital to reduce b', and hike a , productivity, in the future. Thus profit is an evil, that should not be maximalized, as wrongly seen as positive from egoistical idleness, "free rider", "dead meat", plutarch and plutarchist, superiors, upper class and bureaucracy perspective. On the countrary, it should be as little as possible of profit in society, only allowing for profit reflecting scarce resources, "a more or less natural evil of matter against human wishes", however also this profit should be minimalized in the long run, by investment to reduce b' in the long run, - similar to violence and coercion, i.e. repression, the societal evils of statism, (and also repression by plutarchy through economical slavery and slave contracts), in itself an environmental evil product, that also should be minimalized, to get maximal satisfaction broadly defined, utility, for the people in a fair and efficient way. All these problems and solutions, are further analysed and developed in a concise, principally, manner in this short note on the general theory of anarchist economics, below, also taking into account the questions of optimal population, dynamically, in the short and long run.
M entioning utility - in investigations of political and economical activities to find out what to do, optimal actions, total welfare or utility minus costs of different actions and projects, should principally be maximalized, not profit or just marginal utility, reflected by market prices and relevant imaginary, hedonic prices (related to free, rational consumer choice as discussed above). Total utility of a good x, u(x), may be much higher than marginal utility u'(x) = du/dx, i.e. the utility of the last consumed unit of x, say, estimated by market price (or imaginary market, hedonic price) = p (i.e. ca 1p = p, and the "1" unit is the last consumed). As marginal utility of necessity goods may fall considerably with increased amount consumed, and on the other hand be relatively constant for luxury goods, the total utility may be much greater than px for neccesity goods, but quite close to px for luxury goods.
For changes of amount consumed that are ca marginal (dx), the utility change is ca u'(x)dx = pdx (if conventionally decided u'(M) = 1 to measure utility in means of payments (labot notes credits) or money units, and consumer choice is rational and free => u'(x)/p = u'(M) for all goods (the law of Gossen, that may also be given an environmental approach, related to imaginary, hedonic prices). Here u'(x)/p is the marginal utility of the last unit of means of payment (or money) spent on good x, and it is quite obvious that if this is not equal for all goods it is utility to gain by using more money on a good with a high u'(x)/p and less on a good with relatively low u'(x)/p. Thus u'(x)/p = u'(M) is expressing that in general maximal utility is achieved when the marginal utility is equal for every unit of the means of payment on the budget of the consumer spent on different goods or factors.
For changes of amount consumed that are not ca marginal the total utility of goods = u(x) related to a person, must principally be taken into account, and use of the market price to evaluate the change of utility may give a considerable error in case of necessity goods (say, healthy drinking water and food) because then u(x) is far from u'(x)x = px. This may also be valid for some environmental factors, negative (say, pollution) as well as positive (say, necessary recreation facilities and fresh air). In case of luxury goods, market (say, diamonds, i.e. jewels for decoration) as well as environmental (say, to see a nice sunset or dawn), where typically u'(x) = ca constant = p, for even total changes of the amount of the good, the utility may be estimated quite well by the market value, px , i.e. in the environmental case based on the relevant imaginary market, hedonic price. An interesting discussion of some problems related to "free markets", "the unenlightened plutarchy" as Ragnar Frisch put it, is found at URL (click on) http://www.anarchy.no/frisch1.html . IIFOR has (further) developed the total choice utility theory to shed light on the total utility of a product or environmental factor, related to cost-benefit - also called utility minus cost - analysis, as an alternative to the traditional cardinal utility and ordinal utility theories in consumer economics. In stead of mapping a persons preferences in consumption of a little more of this good and a little less of that, leading to ordinal indifference curves, or preferences of incremental changes in consumed amount of a good, leading to cardinal utility, the total choice utility theory maps preferences wholly with or without the good (or environmental factor), i.e. a total amount change, in different connections and 'experiment situations'. A typical example is the choice of 1. as much drinking water as you may want directly from the spring (at consumer or market price zero), and no highly valuable diamonds, i.e. for decoration, millions worth in market value; vs 2. zero drinking water, but as much of the diamonds you may want (over a longer periode of time). Clearly a rational consumer will prefer situation 1., and thus the total utility of water is more worth than the higly valuable diamonds involved. It is also clear that market value or consumer price = zero for the water, and the high price per unit of the diamonds, will not reflect the total utility, only the marginal, according to the traditional theory of revealed preference, and if by some reason all the water is lost for a person, it is certainly a utility loss of more than the value of the diamonds, i.e. millions worth.
Similar is valid for most things necessary for survival, the market price to consumer only reflect marginal, not total utility, and the market value, px, underestimates the total utility of the good very much. For luxury goods, as diamonds for decoration, the total utility may just be a little more than the market value, px, as the marginal utility may be relatively constant. However even for luxury goods the marginal utility may decrease slightly with the amount consumed. Thus, principally market values that are not strictly connected to marginal changes in consumption of goods, for all consumers involved, may be quite misleading in cost-benefit, utility minus cost and welfare analysis. The error will however tendencially be larger for necessity goods and environmental factors affecting survival, than for luxury goods and environmental factors of marginal importance on the welfare.Here it must be mentioned that 'consumption' is defined in a broad sense, including 'perception', use of services etc. and not necessarely 'eaten', as the concepts of utility and its maximization are void of any sensuous connotation. The assertion that a consumer derives more satisfaction or utility from an automobile than from a suit of clothes means that if he were presented with the alternatives of receiving as a gift either an automoblie or a suit of clothes, he would choose the former. Things that are necessary for survival - such as vaccine when a smallpox epedemic threatens - may give the consumer the most utility, although the act of consuming such a commodity has noe pleasurable sensations connected with it.Anarchism includes a humanist approach, and thus much weight is put on the individual u(x) in welfare, utility minus cost, analysis, especially the welfare of the poorest and the most powerless, i.e. powerty and powerlessness should be abolished. Furthermore anarchism has a high positive price on human life. See, say http://www.anarchy.no/kropot1.html for information about the origins of these principles in anarchism. The humanist approach also abolishes some perverted, authoritarian, fundamentalist preference-structures, i.e. when these tendencies are so strong as they are used as background for concrete authoritarian, say, terrorist and torture actions. The question of optimal education and marketing in a social perspective is an important item in anarchist political economy.
If p = b' and the scale coefficient is all in all (aggregated) negative, the production, creation of x, should summa be done with negative profit = (px - wN - rK), i.e. R - wN - rK < 0 , the factor income to the resources N and K is higher than net national product. If this is the case, it should be so, it's optimal . If the scale coefficient is negative in all enterprises in optimum, they should all be run with negative profit . This is a possible case, not something strange. The deficit may be financed by public credit in money or work time credits (NAT/ALC, labor notes credit), that may be interest and payback free, and/or by optimal taxation, i.e. without significant effect on the resource allocation, a taxation compatible with efficiency and fairness. An equal "per head" tax should do the trick in a perfect anarchy. In case there is not ideal anarchy, and thus a slight bureaucratic-plutarchical tendency, with relatively higher income and/or more capital, the bureaucracy may be taxed relatively more to finance the deficit. As an example , if all enterprises have negative profit in optimum (p = b'), because of use of marginal large scale benefits, the summa wN + rK may be 100, the summa px be 90, thus the profit 90-100 = -10, i.e. negative, and the taxes on wN+rk = 10, and this amount of tax is transfered into an interest and payback free loan to the enterprises of the amount 10, to cover the negative profit from the sales (px) - costs (wN+rK). Thus the ecocirc is working, even if all enterprises give negative profit, and the prices are optimal = b' marginal costs (social) , in all enterprises and activities, and there may be full employment, and all are happy, without any positive profit in the system at all.Maximal benefit minus cost, implicating market or imaginary market price (briefly defined above) set equal to marginal cost (social), p-b' = 0, in all enterprises and activities both in private and public sector, should be the leading star of the economy, not profit maximum. This is the general case or 'rule of the thumb', valid when marginal utility = p = marginal cost (social) = b', gives maximal welfare and utility. In special cases this marginal approach is not compatible with maximal welfare, i.e. maximal total utility minus costs (social) may give a different solution. This may be so when total changes - and not marginal changes of goods and environmental factors x, and utility, are involved, as indicated above. Other such situations may be related to 'second best' problems, i.e. what is a good 'rule of the thumb' close to 100% anarchy, is not always equally good as a rule of management when the situation is somewhat far from 100% anarchy, as, say, about 53% anarchy as in Norway 2002. "If scale coefficient is positive all over, so called perfect competition based on profit maximalization may theoretically, under certain conditions, give the same result (p =b'), but this is a quite unrealistic special case (i.e. when social = private firm cost, no externalities etc.), far from realities.
However cost-efficiency all over is a part of the maximal benefit minus cost concept - it must pay to work - not to make profit; of profit it should be just a minimal to zero amount (or less if scale coefficient is negative). Maximal benefit minus cost, cost efficiency included, must not be mixed up with profit maximum (more or less unlimited), which in reality means the " unenlightened plutarchy ", to use Ragnar Frisch's concept, i.e. statism without (libertarian) plan and capitalism without (libertarian) markets. i.e.eventually, in a worst of the worst case scenarios , something like Hitler + Stalin + Argentina of today and before (perhaps not in the future) + Enronism + Taleban/al Qaeda etc., perhaps in the end multiplied n times, close to the bottom of the Economical Political map.... Everybody should work a bit to avoid the profit hell... from ca 67- 96% authoritarian degree. (IIFOR cannot imagine more than ca 96% authoritarian degree at the moment, i.e. general Ragnarokk ).Maximal benefit minus cost, cost efficiency included, fairness and efficiency (effektivitet og rettferdighet) as defined other places at the AIIS-site (search in files and see what it means), that's what management and coordination really are about, and what should be teached and learned at the schools of economics and business, not profitmaximum more or less unlimited. Today (and in the future probably even more and more) environmental effects and marginal large scale benefits broadly defined, are the realistical , more and more, in a large part of society, and thus "free markets" are more and more irrational in the meaning of diseconomy , i.e. inefficient and unfair, i.e. the opposite of efficiency and fairness that are practically selfevident principles, the way these concepts are defined in this theory, i.e. in case you are not put up very rich and powerful in advance. However these criteria are only crude measures of efficiency and fairness, i.e. situations not fullfilling these criteria is probably unjust and inefficient, but even more just situations may discussed, as several Pareto-optimal points is seen as just this way. All of the anarchist principles should be taken into account in management and coordination, political/administrative as well as economical in private and public sectors.
In case a rich bureaucracy, plutarchy, is present, the average welfare of the people, i.e. the part of the net national product going to the people (not the bureaucracy), measured per capita of the people, should be used as a measure of income or welfare of society, as including the bureaucracy profit = cost, will be misleading from a people's and real democratic perspective. Thus it is not the GDP or NNP that should be used as a crude measure of welfare, but net national product minus profit, i.e. px - mpx = (1-m)R in the case m >0, i.e. profit is positive, and perhaps equal to net national product, px = R if m < 0 , i.e. profit is negative. The total GDP or NNP in anarchist economics, i.e. including the profit = bureaucracy costs, system faults/income foregone included, says something about the economical welfare or real income of the system if ideal anarchy was introduced, without and accounting for depreciation/revaluation respectively. The difference between NNP = R and (1-m)R , i.e. mR = the profit = bureaucracy costs broadly defined, is an estimate of possible welfare or real income increase for the people if ideal anarchy was introduced. Thus NNP per capita gives average potential income or welfare in society and (1-m)NNP per capita for the people (included their children accounted for in a relevant way) gives an estimate of factual average real income or welfare for the people (not the bureaucracy) in the society. (That measure is of course most interesting in international and intertemporal comparative analysis (corrected for differences in domestic pricelevel (inflation) and exchange rates. Furthermore differences between real and total income between different societies should be accounted for in a relevant way. However for earth seen all in all, total income = real income NNP, as it is a closed economical system, although not physical.). The next step is quoted from an IJ@ newsletter ( see http://www.anarchy.no/news1.html for the whole newsletter):
EUREKA!
IIFOR HAS FOUND IT - PEOPLE VS BUREAUCRACY ECOCIRC
A NEW SOCIAL ACCOUNTING UN-STATISTICS?
"1-2.03.2002 IIFOR: IJ@ has talked about breakthrough, see the light, etc, as we have had a revelation. However we have only had a scientifical eureka, similar to e = mcc. We are not "tåkefyrster", "fogarchs", but ordinary scientists. In short we have made people vs bureaucracy ecocirc , a framework for a new national, or more correct, social accounting, say, for UN-statistics, - measuring: A. the people's living-standard in contrast to the bureaucracy , i.e. the top of the social pyramide, and the whole population - the "nation", and B. The system or bureaucracy costs, the "top" remuneration plus income forgone due to bureaucracy in the system, that via the principles of accounting by double entry turn out to be a broadly defined profitmargin of society. It is investigated 1.principally, 2. with a simple very operational approximation, and 3. by indicating concrete proposals for improvements. The framework and the results so far, should be seen in the context, related to this web-page in general. Variables and symbols : A export; B import; C consumption, i.e. public + private; I net real investment, i.e. public + private; (C+I+A-B) total demand, i.e. nominally; R = total supply R , net national product, i.e. nominally (R = C+I+A-B); p price level for x, x net national product volume principally measured by output (i.e not input) in private and public sector, (R = px); a averagely workers productivity; r interest rate; K real capital; N employment, i.e. factual supply equal to factual demand of labor, x = aN; k capital/employment ratio; N(u) unemployment, N(full) full employment, i.e. total work force, potential labor supply, not factual, it is however an aim for society to use the whole potential, N = N(full); w = average wage, for the people. R net national product = realincome R = mR + wN + rK, distribution of realincome, where m = profit margin, i.e. market power coefficient (p - b')/p + scale coefficient ( b' - b )/p, were b' is marginal costs and b is average costs of resources, payments for resources, used to produce x, i.e. m = (p-b')/p + (b'- b )/p = (p- b )/p), where b = (wN+rK)/x, and b' = d(wN+rK)/dx. 100% anarchy means zero market power (and a reasonable = optimal high N(full) = N). The scale coefficient reflects general scarcity of resources (positive) vs large scale effects (negative), summa seen all in all, for the whole production in the society, x. Ecocirc for the people vs bureaucracy - democratic ecocirc :
A crude, first approximation to the principles mentioned above, is illustrated by the following example, quoted from http://www.anarchy.no/report1.html :"Environmental quality was among the lifestyle indicators evaluated in the U.N. development rankings, in which the United States placed sixth among the 162 countries examined. Per capita GDP is highest in the United States, at $31,872 compared with Norway's $28,433. But outright wealth in the U.S. was superseded by a less effective war on poverty at home and abroad, shorter life expectancy and higher crime rates. Per capita average income, related to GDP (GNP) or NDP (NNP) is not a valid measure of income for the people , i.e. in contrast to the remuneration to the bureaucracy broadly defined, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector, and system costs in general. The grassroots' payment, i.e. for the people, may better be estimated as the average remuneration (per head) of the poorest majority of the population, say, the 50,0d % (d is a small number > 0) that have less than the median income + 1 $, which is far below the average income, especially in the very plutarchist USA. The average income of the relatively poorest majority of the population, are in Norway probably way ahead of the similar in USA." Thus, the average income, say, measured by purchasing power parities (PPP) or directly in US$ (or NAT/ALC), for the poorest majority of the population , may be used as a first crude approximation of the people's average income, i.e. not the bureaucracy's. By multiplying this average income of the grassrootsfunctions with the total population of income receivers, we get a (very) crude estimate (I) of (1-m)R = [(wN + rK)EST], *)the total remuneration of the people seen as a general grassroots payment , in contrast to the bureaucracy's top remuneration, i.e. payment above the average for the people. NB! This estimation method is compatible with as if the bureaucracy is an " arch or chairman-function " on the top of ordinary work , similar to "working chairmen" . As this is seen all in all, in macro, several class-structures and distributions of bureaucracy-functions may be compatibele with this framework. By adding a crude estimate of the income foregone by unemployment, say, = ap(N(full)-N), to the usual UN-type measure of NNP = R(UN) of today , we get an estimate of R included income foregone**) , i.e.(II) R = R(EST) = R(UN) + ap(N(full)-N), and thus the crude estimate of the system costs = bureaucracy costs = the total profit = the cost of the top of the pyramide above the grassroots payment = mR(EST) . From (I) and (II) we get [R(UN) + ap(N(full)-N)](1-m) = [(wN + rK)EST], <=> [R(UN) + ap(N(full)-N)] - [R(UN) + ap(N(full)-N)]m = [(wN + rK)EST] <=> (III) m = ([R(UN) + ap(N(full)-N)] - [(wN + rK)EST])/ [R(UN) + ap(N(full)-N)] <=> m = (R(EST) - [(wN + rK)EST])/R(EST).
Similar formula may be used for GDP (GNP), but then of course "ap", etc. are related to the gross values. This is only a first, very simple, approximation of sheding light on the people vs bureaucracy economics, estimating: A. the people's "livingstandard", i.e. the (poorest) majority of the population, the grassroots-perspective, in contrast to the bureaucracy or the total population, measured as the average income aggregated from the poor to above the median income, i.e. the income of the middle person, where ca 50% are more poor and 50% more rich than him/her.B. the system cost = bureaucracy costs = the total profit of the system; measured as the bureaucratical profitmargin , i.e. accounting for the "top", plutarchist remuneration above the grassroots payment, plus income forgone because of bureaucratical rule of the system, creating unemployment, see (III).Since A and B are related to the majority of the population, we call this the democratic ecocirc or national, more correct - social - accounting, in contrast to the bureaucratical national accounting widely spread all over the world today (2002), that doesn't have this democratical perspective .A more correct way of sheding light of the people vs bureaucracy economics, should take into account the class-structure more explicitely, x-inefficiency, environmental factors etc. and that production in public sector should be accounted via output, not input, with prices sat to marginal costs (in optimum). Sometimes the superior's functions in public sector are ca fixed costs, and the efficient marginal cost (= price) equal to the public grassroots workers remuneration. Then the contribution to GDP (GNP) and NDP (NNP) measured by output from the public sector, may be equal to the grassroots remuneration, and the profit in optimum (i.e. with maximal benefit minus cost plus efficiency and fairness) may be negative, not zero, as in todays usual UN-accounting, where net-production, px, wrongly is estimated with input (wN), "w" wrongly including profit, i.e. the top remuneration."The measures for A and B are probably only good approximations to the intended, i.e. what is defined principally, key-figures for societal units that really are a common, rather well defined administrative unit, i.e. usually a country, or a part of a country, with a common state or bureaucracy. For the whole world or larger regions, this is not the case. A common "world government", "world state" and "world bureaucracy" don't exist.
The UN is no world state. Exploitation from multinational enterprises in a country is accounted for as a part of the national profitmargin, not as an "international world profitmargin." For this reason, and other things, the "world profitmargin" should be estimated as an average of the profitmargins (= bureaucracy costs margin = system costs margin) in the different countries measured according to A and B above, not as an estimate of the poorest majority of the world seen all in all, regardless of country, which is not very relevant or meaningful. Say, powerty for the people in one country may be due to domestic lack of birthcontrol and other factors resulting in low productivity, and the above measured domestic bureaucracy costs, and it is usually wrong to think it is due to the people, front line, grassroots workers in another country, is exploiting them. Furthermore, it may also be mentioned that the majority of the population (here = the grown up persons), 50,0d % , is more or less a qualified majority of the people, in contrast to the bureaucracy, because the people plus the bureaucracy persons are the population (grown ups).*) To clear up a possible misunderstanding: Summa (rK + wN) in the traditional bureaucratic UN national accounting includes usually top remuneration, bureaucracy profit , hidden in both rK and wN, i.e. as a part of both. Thus , the point B estimate cannot be done without the part A estimate, since summa rK + wN without the bureaucracy profit is estimated by the grassroots average remuneration per head of the poorest majority x number of income-receivers in the country or society, estimated from point A. Thus B depends on A, i.e. A must principally be estimated first as it is input to estimate B. Furthermore, the bureaucracy or upper class profit is not the same concept as the profit mR in firms, but includes more, i.e. the top above the grassroots remuneration in general.
**) "Income forgone" is a bit contradictive concept, because "forgone" probably means "cost" and "incomecost" is contradictive and without meaning in ecocirc context. A scientifical interpretation of "income forgone" in ecocirc context means a split in two, on one hand potential income, on the other hand system- or bureaucracy costs. In addition to the system cost mentioned above, also real democracy have some system cost, say, people discussing cases and voting in referenda etc. This democratic system cost must also be taken into account when discussing total system cost with respect to optimality of systems.
OTHER ECOCIRC - DEMAND, PRICE, EMPLOYMENT, MONETARIST, KEYNESIAN, ETC.
Grunnenheten i det anarkistiske samfunnet er den frie kommunen. Det er her folk bor og arbeider og beslutningene blir gjort, direkte demokratisk, av de som er vesentlig og konkret berørt. Kommunene går sammen i horisontalt organiserte føderasjoner, med full lokal autonomi. I et hvert samfunn har produksjon og fordeling av varer og tjenester, vært det primære. Samfunnet er et arbeidsfellesskap, og arbeid og fritid skal fordeles jevnt ut fra hensyn til evner, behov, effektivitet og rettferdighet. Her skal vi se på de store linjene i økonomien, og prinsippene for anarkistisk økonomistyring på samfunnsplan.
Hele folket i arbeid er et mål som bare kan nås dersom kommunenes økonomi bringes i balanse i forhold til rammebetingelsene. Målstyrt næringsutvikling etter AKSM-metoden gir full sysselsetting, fordi metoden går ut på å følge sysselsettingens økonomiske lover, i stedet for å bryte dem. AKSM står for Anarko-kommunale sysselsettingsmodeller. Vi skal se litt nøyere på disse lovene:
Sysselsettingen i et samfunn, det være seg i en kommune, eller et større område (fylke, region, land, større region, eller verden. Vi kaller dette med et fellesord konføderalt på ulike nivåer), avhenger primært kun av tre faktorer. Dette er:
1) Total etterspørsel (kr), i betydningen det beløp som anvendes til privat og felles forbruk (C) og nettorealinvestering (lager inkludert), (I), samt netto ekstern etterspørsel, [dvs eksportoverskudd i interkommunalt/konføderalt perspektiv, altså eksport (A) - import (B)]. Realligningen (generalbudsjettet) innebærer at total etterspørsel (C+I+A-B) er lik realinntekten, nettoproduktet målt i verdi, nominelt, til løpende priser (kr), (R);
2) Prisutviklingen på det som produseres, i betydningen prisnivået , p, regnet i kr/basisårkrone, for nettoproduktet målt i volum, x. Volumet måles i basisårkroner (dvs med fast kjøpekraft for kronen), slik at R=px;
3) Produktiviteten , a, definert som produksjon pr sysselsatt ): nettoproduktet målt i volum, dividert på sysselsettingen (a = x/N)
Sysselsettingen (N) blir bestemt av disse tre faktorene ved følgende brøk-uttrykk:
(*)
N = (Total etterspørsel)/(Prisnivået x Produktiviteten)
[With symbols: N = (C+I+A-B)/pa ; i.e. anarchist economic law of employment ]
Arbeidsledigheten avhenger i tillegg av en 4. faktor, arbeidsstyrken, N(full) , på følgende måte:
(**)
Arbeidsledigheten = Arbeidsstyrken - Sysselsettingen
[With symbols: Unemployment N(u) = N(full) - N ; anarchist economic law of un employment. According to Say's real law (and Walras' law) all factual demand must be equal to factual supply and vice versa, i.e. always.This also means factual supply of labor is equal to factual demand, always. However potential labor is not always equal to factual supply of labor. Since labor is a service, created and consumed/used on the spot and momentanely, potential labor is not always equal to factual supply. Potential labor is nothing but potential, it does not exist in reality as supply before it is used, consumed = demanded. Keynes misinterpreted Say's real law, but that was understandable because Say was a bit unclear on the difference between factual supply and potential labor. The neoclassics, i.e. the lackeys of mono- or oligopsonistic buyers of labor among them, however mixed up potential labor with factual supply of labor, and they still do, priests of the "invisible hand", with no real scientific validity. There is no "mechanism" in the market that by itself minimalize the difference between potential labor and factual labor supply. In fact there is no such thing as market "mechanism", a dangerous analogy to physics, with no real scientific value.There are always one or more "visible hands" that decide the price, alone or negotiated on one side, or across the market, and indirectly or directly, also the volume. In liberalistic quasieconomics there also exist a term "natural (rate of) unemployment", defined by "further minimalizing of the difference between potential and factual labor supply, will create inflation, i.e. a price hike over time".
This however only reflects bureaucracy in the system , the loss of use of potential labor is a part of bureaucracy costs, it is not at all "natural", and the rate variates from country to country, with size of the society, bureaucracy, number of currencies and ties between them, development of productivity, exchange rates. etc. In the relatively little bureaucratic Swiss Confederation the "unatural rate of unemployment" is as low as ca 0,7%, in Lichtenstein even less, in Norway 2-3%, Iceland also quite low, and in Finland and Germany ca 5-10%, not to mention Argentina... With planned local economy, coordinated on regional and confederal level (and sometimes internationally) with the use of NAT, local communal currency based on work as "hard currency", with velocity = 1, the "unatural" rate of unemployment will be quite minimal, close to zero, and potential labor will be approximately equal to factual supply = factual demand of labor. The average number of work hours per employed, per year, t, may be decided partly political, partly through the market, dependent on the potential supply that the individual whish to deliver. These amounts, N(full) and t, may, among other things, be dependent on the size of the average wage, w, and the distribution of wages, and other sources of income.
Relative slave-wages and slave-contracts may result in a little motivated and weak laborforce, and low N(full) compared to the optimal N(full) in an efficient and fair society and economy, with free contracts. The effects on productivity, a, of fairness and efficiency in general, i.e. a synergical effect, must also be mentioned. The "feel good factor" and motivation surplus for working in an efficient and fair workplace environment broadly defind, without bureaucracy, ochlarchy included, on N(full) & N and "a", must not be underestimated. Work according to ability and capacity must be rewarded in a proper way, but also differences in need must be accounted for to some extent. This may be done by setting fair and efficient prices broadly defined, and/or via different forms of transfers. However too much transfers and cross-taxation/subventions may result in less efficiency and fairness, and more bureaucracy, and should be avoided. It may also initiate "directly unproductive profitseeking behaviour", DUP-actions, that are the direct opposite of ideal anarchist economics.
In general, these questions should be decided, among the Pareto-optimal points, i.e. "that no one could be better off without others are getting worse off"; according to the principle of fairness, i.e. "ombyttekriteriet", that "any distribution of jobs/positions, where no one wants to change position/job with another person, when all real costs and benefits connected to the position/job are taken into account", is considered as fair.
In dynamical and historical perspective, the industrial revolutions, especially of the latest i.e. a) electronical information and communication (ICT), b) roboting and automatisation (RAT), and c) biological and genes (BGT) - high tech ; must be used for liberating and expanding the capasities of work, to rise productivty, a , and the optimal N(full), together with a sufficient total demand hike (C+I+A-B), according to the anarchist economical law of full employment , approximately or ideally, or else the introduction of the new technology will just create unemployment and depression, inefficiency and unfairness. An efficient and fair demand management, including a matter of fact marketing based on the consumers/citizens real demands and needs, through socialistic libertarian markerts, i.e. private sector without plutarchy and statism, and a libertarian federalist public sector, i.e. communal and confederal with rational planning, without statism and plutarchy, is the road ahead. In short anarchist economics, broadly defined, with as less bureucracy , i.e. superiors in political/administrative rank and/or economically, in private and public sector, as possible .]
Å få kommunens økonomi i balanse betyr å målstyre slik at (***) blir oppfylt, samtidig som andre hensyn ivaretas:
(***)
(Total etterspørsel)/(PrisnivåetxProduktiviteten) = Arbeidsstyrken
[With symbols: (C+I+A-B)/pa = N(full) or (C+I+A-B) = apN(full); i.e. anarchist economic law of full employment, indicating the level of demand management towards full employment]
Denne relasjonen kalles "den økonomiske loven for full sysselsetting". De fire primære faktorene nevnt over avhenger igjen av en rekke sekundære faktorer som kan bestemmes direkte demokratisk av folket selv, enten via markeder, eller politisk. Standardutgaven av AKSM tar eksplisitt hensyn til 20 slike faktorer, og tar i tillegg hensyn til 60 sentrale relasjoner og variable i økonomien, de fleste av disse praktisk talt sikre sammenhenger, såkalt økosirk i vid forstand.
I en anarkistisk økonomi vil en arbeidstime normalt krediteres med en nota på 1 NAT ("Normal-Arbeids-Time-anvisning"), som er den grunnleggende verdimåler og "harde valuta". I motsetning til penger kan en NAT bare brukes én gang, analogt med et gavekort, og den vil være en lokal valuta. Skal man handle noe fra en annen kommunene, må man prinsipielt handle i vedkommende kommunes NAT, ved veksling av egen NAT. Dette gjøres f.eks elektronisk og automatisk ved bruk av betalingskort. Vekslekursen mellom de lokale NAT-valutaene settes slik at interkommunal handel balanseres på den ønskelige måten. Det er full konvertibilitet for de lokale valutaene, og fri interkommunal samt internasjonal handel mellom kommunene/land. Den gjennomsnittlige NAT-verdien for alle kommuner i verden er naturligvis 1, vi kan tale om NAT-standard i stedet for gullstandard, dollarstandard etc. Har et område svakere produktivitetsutvikling - og sterkere pris-utvikling - enn det normale, kan NAT-verdien i disse kommunene settes lavere enn 1. Dette betyr at omverdenens NAT-valuta må øke, og i gjennomsnitt ligge noe over 1. Kommunene bestemmer selv vekslekursen, under den bibetingelse at gjennomsnittskursen skal bli lik 1. Dette sørger et interkommunalt/internasjonalt "clearing"-system for. Fordelene er åpenbare - statens seddelmonopol oppheves (og inflasjonen og byråkratiets potensielle plutarkiske utskeielser til egen fornøyelse eller krig etc. dermed avskaffet. Dermed blir det mulig å planlegge på en oversiktelig måte, og informasjons- og transaksjons-kostnadene samt kostnadene ved urasjonelle forventninger og planer, blir minimalisert i dette perspektivet) og alle valutakurser regnes ut fra NAT-standarden, f.eks 0,95 NAT i kommune A, 1,05 i kommune B etc.
Penger (f.eks kroner) kan tenkes brukt som alternativ til NAT i begrenset utstrekning, eventuelt i en overgangsperiode, til NAT-standarden er fullt etablert. Kroner vil da kunne ha en NAT-kurs som står i forhold til verdiskapningen, dvs lik (årlig realinntekt regnet i kroner)/(sysselsettingen i antall utførte timeverk pr. år) = f.eks. 300kr/NAT. Mer presist: Den lokale NAT-kursen vis a vis kroner for en kommune = R/Nt, hvor t=antall timeverk pr årsverk i gjennomsnitt. R omregnet i den lokale NAT-verdi blir derved lik (R i kr)/(NAT-kurs i kr/NAT)= Nt. I en anarkistisk økonomi har hver kommune rett til å disponere NAT i et omfang som svarer til full sysselsetting (dvs en mengde NAT lik (Arbeidsstyrken i årsverk)x(Gjennomsnittlig antall timeverk pr årsverk)), eller et kronebeløp som gir samme etterspørsel. Det er således ikke noe problem å finansiere en etterspørsel som er tilstrekkelig stor til å skape full sysselsetting, og rimelig balanse i ekstern handel sikres ved justering av NAT-kursene (og eventuelt kronekursen). Vi har her valgt å bruke pengeverdier i relasjonene, bl.a for at formlene også skal gjelde fullt ut i dagens samfunn. Ved å regne om pengeverdiene med NAT-kursen, får vi imidlertid uttrykkene på NAT-form. Formlene blir da vesentlig enklere og klarere (pengeøkonomien, i motsetning til NAT, tilslører de reelle økonomiske sammenhengene, man blir preget av pengeillusjoner, og mister oversikten. Bruk av NAT gjør det motsatte, man blir kvitt illusjonene, og realitetene kommer klart fram.) En annen viktig sammenheng i økonomien er prisrelasjonen:
(i) p = (1/(1-m))(w+rk)/a ; (The 1. law of price formation in anarchist economics) <=> w/p = [a(1-m) -rk/p] , if [a(1-m) -rk/p] is little the w/p, the real wage, is little and we have a relative slave wage and work on a slave contract.
[i.e. (i) p = (1/(1-m))(w+rk)/a = (1/(1- (market power + scale coefficient))(w+rk)/a ; where market power = (p-b')/p and scale coefficient = (b'- b )/p, i.e.
m = (p-b')/p + (b'- b )/p = (p- b )/p), where b = (wN+rK)/x, and b' = d(wN+rK)/dx.
With 100% anarchy, market power is zero. The scale coefficient may be positive or negative dependent on scarce recources vs large scale benefits. The interest rate r (of real capital) is of course also hiking price, a bit similar to wages. However r may also affect demand , say C and I, to some extent, and thus indirectly, through (C+I+A-B)/pa = N <=>
(i2) p = (C+I+A-B)/aN affect the price level.
This equation is called the 2. law of price formation in anarchist economics. Both (i) and (i2) is practically always fulfilled in the real economy. The principal effect on price, following from (i), must however never be forgotten . To reduce inflation by increasing r, to reduce demand, say, I , C and/or A-B, may thus be a difficult task . First, the effects on C, and to some extent I, an indirectly on A -B if a hike in r implicates a hike in the exchange rate, may be uncertain. Say, I, is often more influenced by optimism vs pessimism, than r, C may be determined by income rather than r, and the effect on the exchange rate and export vs import may also be a bit uncertain, dependent on finance and other monetary policy. But let us assume that (C+I+A-B), total nominal demand is reduced by a hike in r. It is not certain that this will decrease inflation.
This is so because a hike in r will hike the pricelevel, p, given the other factors in (i) constant, the more the larger the capital/employment ratio is and also more the higher the profitmargin is .
Thus in a highly realcapitalized society, a hike in the price is inevitable, if the other factors in (i) are about constant, despite of a hike in r reducing (C + I +A -B).
This implies a kind of stagflation , because a cut in total demand, combined with price hike, for constant a, will reduce the employment, according to (*). Say, in Norway today (2002) the level of r is related to inflation, i.e. a price hike. If prices hike above a given level (ca 2,5% per year), r is increased in purpose to choke demand and reduce the pricelevel. It is clear by the above similations that this may induce a stagflation policy, and a deadlock with effects quite opposite of what is intended, and even more hike in r, may increase the stagflation even more. Other scenarios may of course be possible, but the above mentioned scenario may well be realistic in many cases. Thus, the idea of regulating the pricelevel down with a hike in r may be of little realism.]
Vi mener man hele tiden bør ha en seriøs diskusjon om forutsetningene for faktorene i prisøkosirken sett fra tilbudssiden (i), ved en økt rente. Profittmargin, markedsmakt og skalakoeffisient, lønninger, realkapitalrenten etc... Og en må her ikke blande sammen CPI (konsumprisindeksen) og nasjonalproduktets prisindeks. Da kan det bære galt avsted. Det er den sistnevnte prisindeksen man må knytte diskusjonen til i første rekke. Politikk og institusjonelle relasjoner er i denne sammenheng å betrakte som virkemidler - ikke eksogene faktorer. Diskusjonen må prinsipielt ta hensyn til alle typer relevant økosirk pluss naturlovene og deres nåværende og sannsynlige framtidige teknologiske og økologiske/miljømessige relasjoner. Men institusjoner samt sosiale og organisasjonelle relasjoner forøvrig kan altså prinsipielt betraktes som virkemidler, som man mer eller mindre på fritt grunnlag kan utforme og endre, politisk/administrativt og økonomisk, som man vil - ut fra hva folket (ikke øvrighten) er best tjent med. Byråkratiske bindinger, som f.eks "handlingsregelen" knyttet til avkastningen av petroleumsfondet i Norge anno 2001-2, o.l. - skal ikke samfunnsvitere ta som eksogene faktorer og relasjoner of "god fisk". Vi må analysere på mest mulig fritt grunnlag hvilke institusjoner og relasjoner som er optimale, effektive og rettferdige, etc, og overbevise politikerne som har makten, samt NHO og LO etc. om at politikken, den økonomiske politikken og den politiske økonomien inklusive det sosiale, må endres til dette optimale. Glemmer man f.eks prisøkosirken (i), sett fra tilbudssiden, går man så og si automatisk i baret.
På NAT-form får vi (i') p=t/a (Når p = t/a får vi praktisk talt automatisk full sysselsetting når kommunen tildeles et totalt antall NAT som etterspørselskreditt stort lik tN(full). Total etterspørsel i NAT blir da tN(full) = (C+I+A-B) = R = px = (t/a)x . Siden x = aN i produksjonen, blir px = tN , dvs tN(full) = tN <=> N = N(full). Det er teorien. I prakis er det et lite problem å estimere a ved full sysselsetting, dersom a varierer med N. Dette må man jo da i prinsippet "gjette på" i en eller annen form, for å få satt prisen (prisnivået) riktig, dvs p = t/a(full), så generalbudsjettet går i hop slik at vi får full sysselsetting, med den tildelet mengden NAT = N(full)t. Husk at omløpshastigheten her er 1, en enkelt NAT kan bare brukes en gang til kjøp av produkter "på kreditt", ved bruk av NAT.)
Etterspørselsstyring (demand management) ved bruk av NAT betyr altså for det første å estimere N(full) og t, for å fastlå (C+I+A-B) = N(full)t, total etterspørsel. For det andre å estimere p = t/a(full), det riktige prisnivået i samfunnet, for dermed til sammen å få den riktige kjøpekraften, (C+I+A-B)/p), som gir full sysselsetting. Har man tallene for forrige periode og hovedtrenden i prosentendringene for produktiviteten og N(full) og t, som henholdvis tendensielt f.eks kan være 1-2% produktivitetsøkning, N(full) er tilnærmet stabil, og t går litt ned fordi en vil ta ut litt av veksten i form av fritid, så er det ikke noe stort problem å regne ut riktig total etterspørsel (C+I+A-B) (i NAT) og samsvarende prisnivå p , så relasjonen (***) for full sysselsetting, som følger av (*) sysselsettings- og (**) ledighetsrelasjonen, går i boks. I prinsippet er det samme problem med etterspørsels-styring ved andre betalingsmidler enn NAT, f.eks. penger, men en har da ikke kontroll på omløpshastigheten, velociteten, v, eller multiplikatoren MU, så det er vanskeligere i praksis "å treffe" på total etterspørsel og prisnivå, så kjøpekraften avpasses til produksjonsvilkårene og derigjennom sysselsettingen, dvs den fulle sysselsetting. Man får på en måte et illusorisk skall eller slør, oppe på de realøkonomiske forholdene som direkt synes ved bruk av NAT. Når man nå har fått effektive måter elektronisk å overføre betalinger på, er det ingen grunn til å fortsette med penger, når det bare skaper forvirring, inflasjon, og arbeidsledighet, eller i hvertfall vanskeliggjør styringen. Mens det i det nåværende norske pengesystemet er vanlig blant mange foretak å justere prisene opp i samsvar med konsumprisindeksen, vil man i en NAT-basert økonomi få et stadig prisnivå-fall ved økende produktivitet, cet. par., siden p = t/a . og det vanlige for bedriftene vil da være å justere ned prisen i samsvar med nedgangen i NAT-prisindeksen for nettonasjonalproduktet, p, (p = 1 i basisperioden). Dette representerer prisnivåtrenden.
I tillegg kan det være justeringer i relative prisforhold, avhengig av utviklingen i økonomien forøvrig (bl.a. grensekostnadene). Prisnivået i NAT-systemet faller hyperbolsk med produktiviteten a, for gitt gjennomsnittelig arbeidstid, t, pr sysselsatt. (En eventuell endring i t ved økt sysselsetting mot full kapasitetesutnyttelse, blir å drøfte tilsvarende som for variasjoner med N i a, borsett fra selvfølgelig av at t inngår i telleren i stedet for nevneren i prisuttrykket)
Via sirkulasjonen, omsetningen, gjennom distribusjons- og produksjons-kjeden kommer NAT-en via kjøp/leie av innsatsfaktorene arbeid og realkapital tilbake igjen til etterspørrerne av (C + I + A - B), slik at lånet/kreditten av NAT som opprinnelig ble brukt til kjøp av ferdigvarer (C + I + A - B) blir betalt tilbake, hverken mer eller mindre. (Siden vi her opererer med nettonasjonalprodukt, R, er vareinnsats, H, og depresiering/revaluering, D, trukket fra samlet omsetning ,bruttoprodukjsonsverdien, X, dvs R = X-H-D.) Selve arbeidskreditten, NAT, er akkurat som penger, ikke i seg selv rentebærende. Derimot vil realkapitalen normalt være rentebærende, for å dekke pensjoner o.l. i samfunnet. Den tidligere generasjon har spart av sin inntekt, konsumunnlatelse, for ved å låne ut denne til investering i realkapital til bruk for nye generasjoner i næringslivet og gjøre den nye arbeidskraften mer produktiv, å sikre seg et rimelig forbruk etter å ha gått av med pensjon, gjennom renter. Noen plutarker/plutarkister, signifikante kapitalister, rikinger, finnes ikke i et tilnærmet ideelt anarkistisk samfunn. Man kan også spare ved finansinvestering vis-a-vis omlandet, (eksportoverskudd) og bidra til realkapitalvekst der, men siden den ene enhetens eksportoverskudd er omlandets importoverskudd, vil dette gå mot hverandre slik at kloden som helhet bare kan spare gjennom økt realkapital. Den som "spiser" av klodens ressurser/realkapital, "arvesølvet" og altså gir negativ nettorealinvestering videre til fremtidige generasjoner, har vel rettferdigvis ikke fortjent stort pensjon. Selv om markedsmakten er null, kan det ved stigende grensekost bli nettofortjeneste (profitt). En god tommelfingerregel kan kanskje være å la denne profitten i hovedsak pløyes tilbake til å bygge opp kloden via realinvesteringer, slik at knappheten som stigende grensekost indikerer ikke skal ta av for mye i fremtiden.
Vi har her sett på gjennomsnittlig grensekost for nettonasjonalprodukt for en hel kommune, eller et større område, f.eks. et land, eller verden totalt. I praksis vil markedsmakt og skalakoeffisient som regel varierere fra bedrift til bedrift, og dermed også fortjenestemarginene. Under visse forutsetninger skal effektiv og rettferdig pris være lik grensekost, dvs markedmakt-koeffisient = 0 i bedriftene. Er skalakoeffisienten negativ, dvs (marginale) stordriftsfordeler, skal da prisen for vedkommende foretak/vare være mindre enn gjennomsnittskostnadene, og foretaket drives med underskudd, dvs negativ profittmargin. Er denne tendensen hovedtendensen i samfunnet, skal næringslivet sett under ett gå med underskudd hva profitt angår. Samfunnsmessig, dvs qua verdiskapning, vil dette likevel gi størst overskudd, dvs nytte - kostnader. Totalnytten er vanskelig å måle, men via teorien for avslørte preferanser (revealed preferance) kan en, under visse forutsetninger, tilnærmet skaffe seg anslag på nytt endringer ved ulike tilpasninger og kostnader, og dermed prinsipielt finne ut hvor nytten - kostnader blir størst, når NATen, (C+I+A-B) = tN(full), arbeidstidsbudsjettet = total etterspørsel, skal fordeles på ulike varer og tjenester. Dersom man ikke vil godta stadig større akkumulerte underskudd, som dekkes ved kreditt, i optimale underskuddsforetak, dvs foretak med marginale stordriftsfordeler, må en foreta overføringer, for å få underskudds-bedriftene i balanse. Dette kan gjøres politisk, men en kan også tenke seg dette gjort internt i storkonserner av samvirkeforetak som målstyrer etter verdiskapningen, pris = grensekost, og ikke total profitten.
Profittmaksimering ved marginale stordriftsfordeler/muligheter for en rekke varer og tjenester, er i det hele tatt en uting. Man vil da vri produksjonen over på varer som gir profitt, vekk fra stordriftsvarer, og dette blir helt feil. Markedsliberalismen ("frie" markeder) basert på profitt maksimering holder dermed generelt ikke mål, ikke engang hva effektivitet angår (og langt fra rettferdighet). Et eksempel på samfunnsmessige stordriftsfordeler er barnehage-tjenester ved hjelp av moderne teknologi og godt utdannet arbeidskraft. For det første kan noen få profesjonelle oppdragere da ta seg av et stort antall barn. Samtidig får man økt arbeidstyrken ved å frigjøre mødre/fedre fra å værer hjemmeværende, dvs alt i alt er det ganske store samfunnsøkonomiske stordriftsfordeler dersom det kombineres med riktig "demand management". så den frigjorte arbeidskraften benyttes produktivt og ikke blir gående ledig eller i "daukjøtt" jobber. Markedet vil av seg selv neppe gi optimal løsning her. Profittmarginen blir trolig negativ ved pris lik samfunnsmessig optimal grensekost, alt tatt i betrakning, nytte - kostnader. Da vil markedet "ta feil", og gi for liten produksjon av disse tjenestene. At barnehager skal være gratis i optimum, er det imidlertid lite som taler for. Riktig pris og underskudd bør beregnes ved anarkistisk nytte-kostnadsanalyse.
Vi har her bare studert de løpende forholdene, for en bestemt periode, og for en periode til den neste. Tilpasningen for å møte fremtidens langsiktige behov har vi bare angitt retninger og muligheter for. Vil en ha større a i fremtiden må jo I være et signifikant beløp, og det må fordeles på en fornuftig måte. Dernest må en ta ut gevinstene ved sosioteknisk fremgang, dvs forbedre selve styringsystemet i progressiv retning. Her har en også en viss frihet. En kan imidlertid ikke fri seg fra de praktisk talt sikre sammenhengene som vi her har forklart, og de sosial-organisatoriske begrensingene som er knyttet til i det økonomisk-politiske kartet, bredt definert.
Her er a produktiviteten (a=x/N, hvor x er nettoproduktet målt i volum), m = profittmargin i den vide betydningen nonressurs-inntektenes andel av realinntekten, R = px. Denne inntekten motsvarer som nevnt total etterspørsel. Profittmarginen er summen av markedsmakt-, (p-grensekost)/p, og skala-koeffisient, (grensekost-gjennomsnittskost)/p. Rent anarki innebærer bl.a null markedsmakt. Videre er w lønn i betydningen gjennomsnittlig arbeidsgodtjørelse pr årsverk, r er rente (normalavkastning, eksklusive profitt) på realkapital (K, dvs tomter, anlegg, hus, utstyr, skog og jordbruksland, etc.) og k er kapitalintensiviteten (k=K/N), realkapital (K) pr sysselsatt.
NB! Regner vi i NAT, får vi at w<t hvis r>0, selv om m=0. Arbeidernes timelønn blir m.a.o. normalt mindre enn 1 NAT , pga pensjoner etc. Normalarbeidstidsanvisninger må ikke forveksles med gjennomsnittlig timelønn. Bare dersom r = 0, og m = 0 blir tN = wN, og t = w. Dette ser en lett ved å sette in for p = t/a i (i). Dette er et spesialtlfelle som generelt er urealistisk, og normalt ikke vil samsvare med effektivitet og rettferdighet. Det er et "marxistisk" spesialtilfelle hvor den såkalte arbeidsverdilæren forutsettes å gjelde. Dette vil egentlig bare ha relevans i en situasjon uten knapphet (stigende grensekost) som impliserer, ved null markedsmakt, m = 0, og overflod på realkapital, så renten blir null, f.eks en naturtilstand med "evige jaktmarker". Pålegges r = m = 0 i en vanlig knapphetsøkonomi går det galt, blir hverken effektivt eller rettferdig, selv om det kan bli full sysselsetting.
Det vil som antydet over, normalt være frihandel i en anarkistisk økonomi. Frihandel som innebærer en enhetlig, usubsidiert, interkommunal handelspris (verdensmarkedspris), uansett hvor produktet er lagd, medfører følgende: To kommuner med forskjellig produktivitet, jevnfør (i'), må da ha valutakurser (kursene etter NAT-standard) som er proporsjonale med produktiviteten (for samme t). Er f.eks produktiviteten 50% lavere i vår kommune, vil vår pris i lokal NAT være dobbelt så høy, og valutaen (vår NAT) må være halvparten så mye verdt, etter internasjonal NAT-standard, om produktet skal omsettes til verdensmarkedspris i den interkommunale handelen. Dette byr at valutakursene bør, under visse forutsetninger, settes omvendt proporsjonalt med produktiviteten i ulike samfunn. Utvikler produktiviteten seg forskjellig i ulike samfunn, vil det som regel gå galt dersom man har en felles, enhetlig, valuta, i form av sløsing med ressurser, herunder økt arbeidsledighet, og økt "naturlig arbeidsledighets rate". Felles valuta er en farlig byråkratisk binding i økonomier som utvikler seg forskjellig. Tilpasningen av folketallet til tilnærmet optimal størrelse i forhold til ressursgrunnlaget ved fødselsregulering alle steder, og fri handel forøvrig, vil sørge for at det blir rettferdig og effektivt. Land/kommuner som systematisk ikke klarer å styre folketallet i optimal retning får i hovedsak ta konsekvensene selv, ellers går det galt med hele systemet.
Setter vi inn prisrelasjonen (i) i (*) får vi sysselsettingsrelasjonen (*) på arbeidsplassform :
(*')
N = (C+I+A-B)/((w+rk)/(1-m)) = R(1-m)/(w+rk) (The law of employment on work place form)
Sysselsettingen blir altså også lik realinntekten fratrukket profitten, dividert på kostnaden pr arbeidsplass - alt inklusive. Denne brøken gir antall arbeidsplasser i bruk, som jo er lik sysselsettingen. (På NAT-form får vi (C+I+A-B)/t=Nt/t=N). Den totale etterspørsel (C+I+A-B=R) kan videre deles i en autonom (initial, direkte = initial inntekt) og en avledet del (indirekte etterspørsel, som representerer ringvirkninger = total realinntekt - initial realinntekt). Forholdet mellom total etterspørsel og den autonome er "multiplikatoren", MU.
Vi har følgelig: (ii) Total etterspørsel = Multiplikatoren x Autonom etterspørsel. (C+I+A-B) = MU(Co + Io + Ao - Bo), i.e. basic Keynesian economic law, practically always valid, unless total crowding out, MU =1 (and strictly defined summa autonomus demand is given), where it is of no interest (although still valid in a way)] Relasjonen (ii) kan også gjelde endringer. Multiplikatoren behøver strengt tatt ikke være konstant. Multiplikatoren kan avhenge av alle realinntektsavhengige forhold i økonomien. Multiplikatorens størrelse avgjør doseringen som skal til for å oppnå full sysselsetting ved autonome etterspørselsøkninger, som f.eks. er direkte demokratisk bestemt. Av (*) og (***) følger generelt at R=Nap og R(full)=N(full)a(full)p(full). Her er R(full)-R den nødvendige etterspørselsøkning (kr) som skal til for å oppnå full sysselsetting. For gitt multiplikator vil den nødvendige endringen i autonom etterspørsel bli følgende:
(iii) Autonom etterspørselsøkning = (R(full)-R)/MU [Autonomous demand increase to achieve full employment]
I NAT-verdier blir R(full) = tN(full) og R = tN. Den reelle NAT-verdien, kjøpekraften, vil akkurat som for penger, være avhengig av prisnivået i den kommunen vi ser på, p. Realinntekten (R) i NAT = Nt, får en kjøpekraft x = R/p, lik Nt/(t/a) = Na. Lav produktivitet bidrar til lav kjøpekraft og levestandard pga høy pris.
"Omsetningsloven" impliserer at total etterspørsel også er lik (mengden av betalingsmidler x omløpshastigheten, i.e. C+I+A-B = R = vM= px ; basic monetarist law). Hvis penger helt ut erstattes med NAT, blir omløpshastigheten lik 1, v = 1, fordi hver NAT bare brukes 1. gang. Mengden av betalingsmidler, dvs Nt regnet i NAT, blir da lik den totale etterspørsel, i hver kommune. En liberalistisk pengeøkonomi kan ha problemer med varierende omløpshastighet, som kan bidra til å skape inflasjon eller arbeidsledighet. Dette problemet eksisterer praktisk talt ikke i en anarkistisk økonomi hvor pengene er avskaffet som betalingsmiddel, til fordel for NAT. [Monetarists usually assumes that v is approximately constant. This is however rarely realistic. In a liberalistic economy v usually is higly variable, contributing to unemployment or inflation.]
Av relasjonen (*) får vi, ved å ta naturlige logaritmer på begge sider: ln sysselsettingen N = ln total etterpørsel (C+I+A-B) - ln prisnivå p - ln arbeidsproduktivitet a. Naturlige logaritmer tilsvarer tilnærmet prosentvise endringer. Følgelig gjelder tilnærmet : % endring i sysselsetting N = % endring i total etterspørsel (C+I+A-B) - % endring i prisnivået p, dvs inflasjonen - % endring i produktiviteten a (approximately). Det er utviklet LOTUS-kompatible regneark som beregner de eksakte prosentvise endringene i sysselsetting ved gitte prosentendringer i høyresidevariablene, samt prosentendringene i arbeidsledigheten, ut fra en gitt utgangssituasjon.
[We have above demonstrated that Keynesian economics including Phillips curve reasoning, Walras neoclassical price formation economics with different market powers and scale effects, monetarist economics, etc. are all based on practically always valid laws of economical circulation broadly defined, and that all these relations can be combined with convertible NAT, labor means of payment, labor credits, in anarchist economics. Monetarist policy, based on relatively stable v, etc., Keynesian economics based on relatively stable MU > 1, etc, and neoclassical perfect competition theories based on zero market power, etc, are all special cases of anarchist economics , with limited scientific validity seen apart. They are in reality not different schools of economics, but just special cases of the same general "mother model", i.e. anarchist economics, historically rooted back to P. J. Proudhon and his followers, a bit to the left Bakunin and Santillan, upwards, Kropotkin, and a bit to the right Tucker,(see Economical Political Map, the system theory of anarchist political economy and social organization research at http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html and the mathematical expression of the map at http://www.anarchy.no/formula.html ) but also other libertarian socialistic economists, i.e. not marxists and not liberalists (and of course not populists/fascists).
Anarchist economics are general real economics, and may be used in different ways, say, to create scenarios and simulations for the future and contrafactual vs factual historical analysis, etc. It is the most powerful tool of economics today , and because it is general, and basically made up of practically always valid mathematical laws, it will probably also be of great importance in the future. It will also be a main field for new research of practically always valid laws of economics, say, on more disaggregated level, split in public and private sectors and industrial branches, industrial organization & economics, environment vs market products, bureaucracy vs the people, welfare economics and anarchist cost benefit analysis, the past, now and the future (dynamics), economical-political systems, economical-political history, ICT-economics, demographics and the relations between food production, starvation and population, i.e. global population size is approximately proportional to the global food production - as a crude rule of the thumb (These food/starvation relations are not ecocirc, but based on biology, etc..); overpopulation, approximately optimal population and underpopulation, and population regulation, etc. in a dynamical context , taken into account improvements in global productivity regarding food, also taking into account environmental factors, food quality, nutrition and pollution characteristics included.
Regarding bureaucracy costs, as indicated above, "net national product" here implies that public sector bureaucracy remuneration is accounted for not as output (= a part of public consumption, as in bureaucratical "national accounting"), but as input , costs, similar to the superiors costs in private sector. Public sector production is principally measured in the same way as private sector in anarchist ecocirc. Thus the "national" product is more of a societal product , measured on communal level, and/or confederally, with bureaucracy only as costs, never as output, and also including environmental factors and free goods and services in addition to the market goods and services of private and public sector. Also ordinary public sector products are seen as market products broadly defined , i.e. they are demanded via public budgets, not private (or a combination, i.e semipublic), but similar to private sector goods and services in other ways. The public demand may be financed by net-taxes, other public income and/or loan, in money or labor notes credits (NAT = average labor-time credits ALC).The income of the bureaucracy broadly defined in public and private sector, is only a part of the total bureaucracy costs. Also the realincome forgone by unemployment is a part of the total bureaucrary costs (as well as the costs by other disoptimalities). If a and p is constant this part of the bureaucracy cost will be estimated just to (N(full)-N)ap. (In NAT-value (N(full) - N) t)) However in practice, a and p may be changed a bit, say, if the unemployemt will have lower og higher productivity than the others if employed.
To put a former bureaucrat "dead meat" in the frontline for real production will both cut bureaucary costs (input) and increase production, both in public and private sector, (if of course production is measured real, i.e. by output (not input) in both sectors). If employment will be constant, this will increase productivity, a. This is valid for the bureaucracy both in private and public sector. Introducing new technology in management broadly defined, in an increasingly more democratic society may produce more and more "dead meat" bureaucracy, which should be put up in the front line for productive work, both in private and public sector. In traditional bureaucratical "national accounting" a movement of workers from frontline productive public sector work over in the bureaucracy "dead meat" will have no effect on measured national product/realincome. This is so because production is measured by input, not output. Thus, the whole public sector may be transferred from frontline work to administration, without changing the GDP/NDP. Although productivity and output will fall, the (wrongly) measured GDP/NDP may remain the same because production is estimated by input. Furthermore if the bureaucrats are higher paid, they will be wrongly accounted for as more valuable than the frontline productive workers. In this case a movement from productive frontline public sector work to "dead meat" bureaucracy will, while reducing output, increase costs. It is clear that the bureaucratical "national accounting" may be very misleading from "benefit minus cost" for the people perspective.
If such a growth in public bureaucracy is put up to overadministrate the private sector, the real productivity will fall even more, first because of the fall of productivity in public sector, secondly because productivity in private sector will fall. Thus "a" aggregated productivity will fall even more. In private sector this will be registrated because private a is measured by output,and x/N (for private sector) will go down. However in public sector the fall in productivity will not be measured because production wrongly is "estimated" by input costs = wN, and not by px (for public sector). Real production goes down (x public down), an thus x/N = a for public sector is going down, for given N in public sector. This is however not registrated in "national accounting" bureaucracy diseconomies. In anarchist economics and ecocirc, this diseconomics are principally taken relevant care of, because also public sector production is measured by output = x, and px in value (p,x public), this problem should be avoided.
Also a more democratic society, economical and political/administrative in private and public sectors, is a public good in itself. The optimal path of society, the system, on the economical-political map, see http://www.anarchy.no/a_e_p_m.html , thus seems to be a movement upwards on the economical-political map, cutting bureaucracy costs, more and more, but the optimal speed of introduction of new communication, informaton and decision coordination technology may of course be discussed. This will be a political economy question broadly defined, taking into account other socio-technological progress , broadly defined, in an optimal way. In this discussion anarchist class analysis, economic political sociology and industrial organization research, see http://www.anarchy.no/klasse.html and the formula of anarchism, see http://www.anarchy.no/formula.html , should also be taken into account. The map and system theory of political economy and social organization research, the class analysis and economic-political sociology and industrial organization research, and the formula of anarchism, are rooted back to the theories of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Santillan, Tucker and other anarchist economists befor the second world war, and other research.
The general theory of anarchist economics is, among other things, also directly rooted back to R. Frisch and T. Haavelmo 's (i.e. the Norwegian Nobel economical prize winners) notes on " økosirk systemet " the " system of economic circulation " - "ecocirc"/"økosirk" , [that must not be mixed up with "national accounting" , although in some ways, but not all (i.e. vis-à-vis bureaucracy), they are related fields of research] who on their later days developed to be libertarian socialists , and further developed by anarchist economists, mainly in Norway, but also other places. In the newer history of libertarian economists in Norway, professor in marketing and distribution research, L. Holbæk-Hanssen , who also declared himself an anarchist in the early 1980s, may also be mentiond. And Einar Thorsrud, Philip G. Herbst et.al.'s " alternatives to hierarchical organization " in industrial economics, must not be forgotten. To day several economists broadly defined, researchers and journalists, are working with different aspects of anarchist economics , political economy , social and industrial organization research broadly defined, in Norway. There is also a network with anarchist economists broadly defined, internationally.
The general reasoning in anarchist economics for optimal demand and supply side policy, via monetary and financial, included industrial, policy may be summarized in the following way:
A. The general ecocirc for money (or labor notes credit), income, demand, supply, distribution, production and employment of net national product is the basic. Gross national product data may of course also be used, the I and R are the gross figures, and all the other variables are also referring to the gross figures. .
B. Symbols in English/American: A export; B import; C consumption, i.e. public + private; I net real investment, i.e. public + private; (C+I+A-B) total demand, i.e. nominally; R = total supply R , net national product, i.e. nominally (R = C+I+A-B); p price level for x, x net national product volume principally measured by output (i.e not input) in private and public sector, (R = px); a averagely workers productivity; r interest rate; K real capital; N employment, i.e. factual supply equal to factual demand of labor, x = aN; k capital/employment ratio; N(u) unemployment, N(full) full employment, i.e. total work force, potential labor supply, not factual, it is however an aim for society to use the whole potential, N = N(full); w = average wage, for the people. R net national product = realincome R = mR + wN + rK, distribution of realincome, where m = profit margin, i.e. market power coefficient (p - b')/p + scale coefficient ( b' - b )/p, were b' is marginal costs and b is average costs of resources, payments for resources, used to produce x, i.e. m = (p-b')/p + (b'- b )/p = (p- b )/p), where b = (wN+rK)/x, and b' = d(wN+rK)/dx. 100% anarchy means zero market power (and a reasonable = optimal high N(full) = N). The scale coefficient reflects general scarcity of resources (positive) vs large scale effects (negative), summa seen all in all, for the whole production in the society, x. M money (or other means of payment); v circulation velocity of money (or other means of payment); MMU Money or credit multiplier, MU Keynesian multiplier; NAT average workers credit per hour (labor notes credits), i.e. "hard currency" in anarchist economics, M may be measured in NAT or other means of payments, say NOK or US $ (more precise: NAT = average labor-time credits ALC, that must not be mixed up with w, wages, or wN, wage-costs, accounted exclusive all the profit-elements).; t averagely number of work hours per year per employed; o indicates autonomous or initial amount of a variable]
C. The general ecocirc, i.e equation system, for money (or labor notes credits), M; income, R; demand, C + I + A - B; supply, px; production, paN; income distribution, mR + wN + rK; and employment, N, N(full); - of net national product:
=> Mv = R = [C + I + A - B] = px = paN = mR + wN + rK =>
<= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <=
D. Here monetary policy: M = [MMU]Mo The autonomus supply of money, Mo, the money-multiplier MMU and r is influenced or directly decided via the central bank (or anarchist confederal clearing house replacing it in anarchies of a high degree) and its ramifications, via the monetary policy, as well as the exchange rate, affecting A and B. Monetary policy may be direct decisions of the size of the means, Mo, r, exchange rate, and MMU, but also regulations and regulatory means of the financial system and markets and its ramifications, to achieve the wanted size of the variables, or a combination. An example to illustrate the money ecocirc: px = Mv; v = px/M; p = 1000 kr/ku, x = 20 ku[er], M = 10 000 kr, v = 1 (antall ganger pengene sirkulerer i omsetningen, ubenevnt tall) (1000 kr/ku)(10 ku) = (10 000 kr)( 1) <=>10 000 (kr/ku) ku = 10 000 kr <=>10 000 kr = 10 000 kr; v = (1000kr/ku) (10ku)/(10 000 kr) = 1.
E. Finance, including industrial - policy: R = [MU]Ro ; Ro = Co+Io+Ao-Bo = autonomous demand = public[Co+Io+Ao-Bo] + private[Co+Io+Ao-Bo], The public part is decided directly by the finance public budget policy, and the private may be influenced by the finance and monetary policy broadly defined, as well as consumer organizations, marketing, the newsmedia. Remember the central bank (or anarchist confederal clearing house replacing it in anarchies of a high degree) may principally print fresh money (or labor notes credits) if necessary to cover a public sector budget deficit. Thus the public sector principally has no budget limit, however to print fresh money is of course no panacea. It may result in inflation, but not necessarely if the unemployment is high over a long periode. The keynesian multiplier, MU, may be affected by the institutional industrial policy of public and private organizations, and public regulations and regulatory means in this field. The industrial policy may also affect the price, remember:
p = (1/(1-m))(w+rk)/a ; where p = (1/(1-m))(w+rk)/a = (1/(1- (market power + scale coefficient))(w+rk)/a ; where market power = (p-b')/p and scale coefficient = (b'- b )/p, i.e.m = (p-b')/p + (b'- b )/p = (p- b )/p), where b = (wN+rK)/x, and b' = d(wN+rK)/dx. The market power, and scale coeffisients may be affected by the financial, public budget as well as industrial, competition, price control and supply side policy; w may be influenced by the syndicalist and industrial organizations, as well as public sector, via the industrial income and labormarket policy and negotiations. a, b', b, is also influenced by technology, investment, education, environmental, etc., policy.
F. Full employment is achieved with N = N(full). This general ecocirc relation, i.e. equation system mentioned above, is practically always certain and valid. The economical policy in practice, i.e. any historical scenario in general, results in one set of data of the equation system C, D & E above. Economical, optimal policy, planned in a realistic way, must in general also be a scenario - a set of data of this equation system.
G. Implementation of optimal scenario. The demand and supply side policy is determined via 1 .the monetary and 2. the finance, included industrial, policy, broadly defined. Thus, the demand and supply side policy, via the 1 .the monetary and 2. the finance, included industrial policy, broadly defined, must be seen altogheter with respect to this equation system.
Full employment is achieved with any scenario of C, D & E where N = N(full) = [Mv = R = C + I + A - B = px = mR + wN + rK]/pa
An economical policy aiming at full employment, high production, fair distribution etc. more and more over time, must also in general be a scenario of C, D & E, i.e with N => N(full). Principally if monetary policy Mv = v[MMU]Mo = R determines R/pa = N = N(full), the general budget R = C + I + A - B, and the keynesian multiplier equation R = [MU]Ro, etc, will automatically be fulfilled, and r will determine w for given m, K, N and p. However in practice monetary policy is usually only resulting in R < R(full). The typical IMF and OECD economical policy of today, is often monetarist, but this usually is not working very efficient, i.e. approximately achieving N = N(full) with a reasonable a, p, r and thus w development over time. This is due to the factors in the product v[MMU]Mo may not be made sufficiently large just by monetary policy means, thus implicating v[MMU]Mo = R < R(full) and N < N(full).
Thus, the difference R(full) - R > 0 and this difference is often too large in practice, using monetary policy means. This difference may be done away with by a) increasing autonomus demand, public or private, via the monetary interest rate and exchange rate policy, and/or finance policy including industrial policy, increased public expenditure and/or less taxes, mainly for the relatively poor housholds, i.e. by keynesian demand and b) supply side policy, say to cut prices via cut in the profitmargin, i.e. bureaucracy top remuneration, reducing market power and scale coefficient via industrial means, a.s.o. to achieve [MU]Ro = R = R(full) or close to. The monetary policy via the money-ecocirc-equation, will thus automatically also be more expansive. In general the finance, including industrial policy, and the monetary policy must be seen altogheter, because usually neither of them is alone sufficiently expansive to hike total demand towards full employement, i.e. to achieve [C + I + A - B]/ap = N(full) <=> Nap = N(full)ap = [C + I + A - B] = R = R(full) = [MU]Ro = v[MMU]Mo.
NB! Summa (rK + wN) in the traditional bureaucratic UN national accounting includes usually top remuneration, bureaucracy profit , hidden in both rK and wN, i.e. as a part of both. S umma rK + wN without the bureaucracy profit is estimated by the grassroots average remuneration per head of the poorest majority of the income-receivers in the country or society, estimated as mentioned above, search in this file for "poorest majority". To cut s umma rK + wN without the bureaucracy profit , i.e. the grassroots-remuneration, mainly wages or salaries and pensions for the relative poor, - is not very smart, because such cut may reduce demand for the net national product, usually because of a high propensity to consume for such poor groups. Thus to achieve R = R(full) => N = N(full) it may be necessary to increase the grassroots remuneration.
THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL
http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html
A crude translation from English to Spanish or French etc. may be done at URL: http://www.freetranslation.com/ or http://www.worldlingo.com/wl/Translate
The International Anarchist Congress
The 7th Anarchist Biennial - Medio December 2002
SUMMARY OF PAPERS
PROGRAM
International Congress-Seminar on Anarchism:
Saturday 14.12.2002
I. LABOR ECONOMICS
A. Papers on anarchist economics related to unemployment.
Preliminary research on unemployment of different lands world wide show a.o.t that the percentage degree of unemployment is correlated with the authoritarian degree, say, relative libertarian societies as the Swiss Confederation, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Isle of Man, Andorra and Norway have a tendency of less unemployment compared to more authoritarian countries, and the more authoritarian the more unemployment.
Sunday 15.12.2002 I
B. Special invited paper: IIFOR's labor market paradox: Why a more efficient labor market may create more unemployment
Better labor market administration is often focused on the following main objectives:
Helping job-seekers find jobs
Assisting employers in recruitment and restructuring efforts
Preventing and alleviating the harmful effects of unemployment
Find job-seekers for vacant positions and vacant positions for job-seekers
Provide information about vacant positions, occupations and education
Provide information about job-seekers and vacant positions
Adapt job-seekers' skills and qualifications to requirements of the market
Assist employees who have difficulties finding or keeping jobs (rehabilitation) for social or health-related reasons
Administrate national insurance benefits (unemployment benefits, grants for training, rehabilitation benefits)
All in all this may increase mobility and make the labor market more efficient broadly defined.
Symbols in English /American : A export; B import; C consumption, i.e. public + private; I net real investment, i.e. public + private; (C+I+A-B) total demand, i.e. nominally; R = total supply R , net national product, i.e. nominally (R = C+I+A-B); p price level for x, x net national product volume principally measured by output (i.e. not input) in private and public sector, (R = px); a averagely workers productivity; N employment, i.e. factual supply equal to factual demand of labor, x = aN; N(u) unemployment, N(full) full employment, i.e. total work force, potential labor supply, not factual, it is however an aim for society to use the whole potential, N = N(full);
The basic ecocirc equations in this case are:
R = C+I+A-B = px = paN <=> (C + I + A - B)/pa = [(C+I+A-B)/p]/a = N and N(u) = N(full) - N
A more efficient labor market administration, more mobility etc, as a part of the industrial policy, will usually increase a, the labor productivity. Thus, if not and (C+I+A-B)/p is increased in equal amount, N will be reduced via [(C+I+A-B)/p]/a = N, and N(u), the unemployment will be hiked, for given N(full). Say, if a is increased 1% due to more efficient labor market administration, and the demand corrected for inflation (C+I+A-B)/p is not hiked also with 1%, but is hiked less, the employment will be reduced.
This case, i.e. IIFOR's labor market paradox, may very well be the case in practice, dependent on consumption vs saving behavior etc. This may happen if the marginal propensity to consume is relatively low for the relevant housholds, say, in a time of depression in the economy. In this case some unemployed may be employed by the more efficient labor market administration, but then even more new unemployed from other firms will appear, and all in all the employment, N, will be less.
Thus a more efficient labor market administration must be combined with a more expansive demand and relevant price policy, i.e. a sufficient increase in (C+I+A-B)/p, to work well according to the aim, to get unemployed a job that pays well and increase employment. A more efficient labor market, increased mobility etc, say, in times depression of the economy, may often increase unemployment, seemingly a paradox, but thus in reality quite logical.
II. ON THE LOGIC OF COLLECTIVE ACTION
A. Preliminary research on anarchism vs "free riders"
"Getting something for nothing" is a problematic case in anarchism, as there is in general "no such thing as a free lunch". Sorry to say, one of the basic human motives is probably the desire "to get something for nothing". Theft for example, is a way to "get something for nothing," and is the paradigm case of an illegitimate act from the anarchist perspective. However, there are other possible scenarios in which depictions of this phrase are probably not incompatible with anarchism. To condemn any attempt to get something for nothing is thus to overgeneralize.
Solidarity is one case in point. The recipient of voluntary welfare does nothing improper, whatsoever. A person may be down on his luck, or simply forgot his wallet, or was the victim of a mugging. He asks a passerby for a buck for carfare, or for a cup of coffee, or for some change with which to make a phone call, and receives it. He thereby got "something for nothing," but probably offends no anarchist law which should remain on the books.
Even the victim of a crime gets "something": e.g., the satisfaction that the robber took no more than he did, or refrained from murdering him. Or take another case: I am holding a $100 bill in my hand, and the wind takes it off, to who knows where. Surely, I gain nothing from this occurrence; but if it floats into someone else's possession, he gains something for nothing, but it need not be according to a base human motivation, or be seen as similar to theft.
The critics of obtaining something for nothing also overlook the concept of consumer and producer surplus. Say, the grocer has hundreds of oranges on hand. If he does not sell them soon, they will rot, and then it would cost him money (in addition to the purchase price) to dispose of them. So the grocer sells a few of them to me. He may get something for nothing, i.e. if they else would rotten. Although I pay a few pennies, I would perhaps have been willing to pay a dollar for these oranges had I been asked to do so. The difference to me between what I would have been willing to pay (the greater value) and what I actually did pay (the lesser value) is my consumer surplus. No one else can probably know this amount exactly, but for me it is in effect found money. Or, in other words, I just got something for nothing in terms of consumer surplus as did the grocer in terms of producer or seller surplus.
A concept often seen by mainstream economists in a derogative way is that of the "free rider" (meaning "gratispassasjer" in Norwegian). Anyone who gets a value for which he does not pay (another version of "getting something for nothing") is in general seen as evidence of economic inefficiency, a so called "market failure" or "environmental externality." This may also be unfair.
The typical example of this is when a person benefits from the fact that his neighbor washes his car, or trims his lawn, or keeps his house in good repair. These actions tend to maintain or upgrade the real estate values of the first homeowner's property, and presumably increase his enjoyment of his holdings because the view improves.
Why is this so bad? Perhaps for one of two reasons. We can become enraged at the free rider because he is getting something for nothing. Alternatively, the good neighbor is not doing enough to beautify his own premises, and is thus "cheating" the free rider out of even greater benefits.
Whether blaming the recipient of the positive externality for being an ingrate, or the donor for not doing enough for the former, one thing is clear: Public or collective decision should probably step in, for without this the neighborhood will not be welfareoptimal, i.e. maximal benefit minus costs.
In this, and similar, cases, collective decision and action is probably a good thing, if the regulations and regulatory means are working in a libertarian way. However any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a forth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment. This, and similar cases, are clearly authoritarian, and not efficent and fair, i.e. anarchist
If people are nice to one another, if they smile at each other, well and good. If we appreciate what Einstein, Mozart and Kropotkin have given us, if we are "free riders" on them, again well and good. We are all the beneficiaries of those who came before us. This is part and parcel of civilized living, and is no cause for alarm. However squatting is something else. This may very often be seen as similar to having a free lunch and let others pay the bill, i.e. slave for the squatter one way or the other. And pacifism - this is perhaps a luxury that an anarchist society probably should accept if very few are pacifists, but if this authoritarian tendency is increasing too much, it is quite certain not acceptable.
III. AKTUELL KOMMENTAR
20-21.12.2001. Utviklingen i Argentina viser med all tydelighet hva innføringen av EURO kan medføre av katastrofer i EU, hvor landene har vidt forskjellige forutsetninger og utviklingsnivå, og ulik utvikling og potensiale for produktivitet, etterspørsel og inflasjon. Felles valuta er en byråkratisk tvangstrøye som vil straffe seg bl.a i sløsing med arbeidskraften. Vi minner om at sysselsettingen blir bestemt ( tilnærmet for prosentendringer, og eksakt for naturlige logaritmer av N = (C+I+A-B)/pa)) av følgende enkle formel:
(1) Prosentendringen i total nominell etterspørsel - inflasjon - prosentendring i arbeidsproduktiviteten = prosentendring i sysselsettingen .
dvs (en gitt) prosentendring i sysselsettingen + inflasjonen + prosentendringen i arbeidsproduktiviteten = prosentendringen i total etterspørsel
Denne formelen (1) kommer man ikke utenom (eg. (C+I+A-B) = apN)) . Den er nemlig praktisk talt alltid gyldig, uansett økonomisk-politisk system og dermed generell i forhold til alle økonomiske modeller; Keynesiansk, Monetaristisk, IS-LM, AD-AS, generell likevekt, herunder Walras, etc, etc. Alle disse er spesialtilfeller av denne " mor-modellen ". Trekker man inn ulike mål for arbeidsstyrken finner man enkelt den tilsvarende arbeidsledigheten (N(full) - N), som er arbeidsstyrken fratrukket sysselsettingen. Når man innfører en fast, felles valuta, for land med forskjellig utgangssituasjon og utvikling (-spotensiale), får man en byråkratisk skranke, som sannsynligvis vil medføre en klar stigning på sikt i den (u-)naturlige arbeidsløshetsraten. (Dvs når N(full) - N går mot den "naturlige" arbeidsledigheten, så øker p kraftig. (N(full)-N)/N(full))100 er arbeidsledigheten regnet i prosent, også kalt arbeidsledighets raten.
En kan minne om at i det relativt ubyråkratiske Sveits er den "naturlige" arbeidsledighets raten ca 0,7 %, i Lichtenstein enda lavere, og i Norge foreløpig ikke verre enn 2-3 prosent. Ved å kvitte oss med byråkratiet kan vi komme ned på sveitsisk og lichtensteinsk nivå. Da må vi for all del ikke knytte oss til EUROen. Dette er å kaste gode penger etter dårlige. Det er realverdiene som teller, ikke finans-og symboløkonomien, dvs fiksjonsøkonomien. Argentinas dogmatisk, byråkratiske monetaristiske pengepolitikk, har utviklet seg til et plutarkisk redselsregime, med enorme systemkostnader. Det bare viser hvor galt det kan gå når "markedsteologien" brukes som kart for den økonomisk politiske kursen. Da er det bedre med "anarko-kommunale sysselsettingsmodeller". AKSM bygger direkte på (1) over, og noen andre sentrale, generelle, praktisk talt sikre, økonomiske sammenhenger.
Modellene har også gyldighet på landsplan, og for verden sett under ett, men i det sistnevnte tilfellet faller naturligvis eksportoverskuddet bort, da jorden økonomisk sett er et lukket samfunn.
Mer om Argentina finner du på http://www.anarchy.no/ija631.html og om det norske økonomisk-politiske systemet på http://www.anarchy.no/a_nor.html . Andre eksempler på praxeologisk anvendelse av teoriene, med tilbakevirkning i retning fornyelse av teoriene i en lærings- og forsknings-spiral, finnes på så og si hele http://www.anarchy.no , dvs i alle filene på domenet.
OIL PRICE
The IIFOR in general recommends a crude oilprice between about 140 - 160 US $ for 2010-2012 , as fair and efficient, taking into account a.o.t. the environmental factors, say, carbondioxide pollution, and the intergenerational perspective, i.e. the welfare of the future generations from a scarce exhaustible important resource. This interval is an approximation of free contract traded pricing according to the l'Internationale des Fédérations Anarchistes, IFA's, and other relevant anarchist-principles, see http://www.anarchy.no/ifa.html , applied on crude oil production and distribution, i.e. not slave contracts. The IIFOR's general recommendation of the optimal crude oilprice will be adjusted for inflation, technological change including development of alternative energy resources, discovering of new oil and natural gas fields, developing countries need for crude oil, etc. An estimate on long term is about 150 US $ per barrel, this price is due to efficient backstop technology in relation to solutions to the manmade global warming problem. A backstop technology provides resources at a constant marginal cost, i.e. corrected for inflation, for an indefinitely long time. For IIFOR's updated average crude oil prices and forecasts, see http://www.anarchy.no/oilprice1.html .