EnMo Economics
EnMo economics is an economic theory that suggests the proper role of
the state in the economy is to ensure that all its people have Enough of
everything they need to live secure, comfortable and happy lives,
whilst also ensuring that the private sector is able to supply more in
terms of non-essential products and services.
by John Andrews / September 5th, 2016
And it’s whispered that soon if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forests will echo with laughter
— “Stairway to Heaven,”
written by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page for Led Zeppelin’s fourth album
(untitled) recorded in November, 1970, released in 1971.
The Mythology of Economics
Many people know that our great trusted rulers routinely lie to us
and deceive us – always “in the national interest”, obviously. The
clearest single proof of this that nearly everyone is familiar with is
our rulers’ obsession with secrecy – the routine classification of
government documents that prevents the public from knowing what their
governments are really up to – at times when full disclosure of that
information would be most useful. Those great heroes who try to reveal
government secrets, at inopportune times, are brutally dealt with by our
great trusted leaders – as Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward
Snowden (to name but a few) could easily verify. But the maintenance of
great secrecy is not the only hard proof of the deceit of those we trust
to lead us.
Another well-known tool is the manipulation of the media. Once again
many people know the mainstream media cannot be trusted to tell the
truth. Fine books are available detailing the proof – Knightley’s
First Casualty, for example, or Edwards and Cromwell’s
Guardians of Power, or the classic
Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman; and the website
Media Lens is one of the very best in the world for their ongoing scrutiny of media deceit.
But these are not the only devices our great trusted leaders employ
to keep us deceived and easy to lie to. By far the most insidious
device, that facilitates meek acceptance of the other two, is much less
well-understood. Generally known as education, it is in effect a
carefully managed programme of brainwashing – a lifelong drip-feed of
half-truths combined with blatantly fallacious propaganda strongly
affirming the moral right of the ruling elite to rule us. The most
obvious proof of this is the powerful role that religious education once
played in most parts of the world – and still does to this day in far
too many corners of the world.
Religion is not quite the force in the west that it once was as a
tool for enforcing elitist control — a new belief system has largely
replaced it for that purpose, a belief system that is almost
indistinguishable from religion in terms of paucity of hard verifiable
proof: economics.
Economics has only recently emerged as a self-contained entity. The
subject of government finance used to form part of an area of knowledge
called Political Economy. A mere hundred and fifty years ago a standard
textbook on the subject by one of the world’s leading authorities, JS
Mill, was titled “Principles of Political Economy”. Economics, as a
distinct and separate subject, did not exist. This is not a trivial
point.
The expression “political economy” rightly suggests an inseparable
link between politics and economics. The linkage is an indisputable
fact, and will always be so whilst human society exists, but that’s not
how economics is taught. Today economics is taught as though it was a
real science, based on hard, verifiable, empirical evidence, a real
science where immeasurable subjective concepts from the political realm,
such as justice, security, fairness and happiness are completely
irrelevant. Today economics seeks to impress the unwary with
impressive-looking mathematical formulae, creating the illusion that
it’s a real science. But the truth is that economics is just another
pseudo-science scarcely distinguishable, in terms of verifiable proof,
from astrology, shamanism or any other religion. Real science has
evolved from centuries of careful experimentation and fact-checking.
Scientific formulae need to be so robust that they can withstand
repeated experimentation at any time and place and still continue to
produce the same results. Economic formulae, on the other hand, are
based on no experimentation whatsoever – or so little experimentation,
and in such tightly constrained circumstances that they cannot be said
to truly reflect real-world conditions at all.
Galbraith has made this very point before:
The increasingly technical formulations [of mathematics
in economics] and the debate over their validity and precision provided
employment for many of the thousands of economists now needed for
economics instruction in universities and colleges around the world…
Mathematical economics also gave to economics a professionally
rewarding aspect of scientific certainty and precision, adding usefully
to the prestige of academic economists in their university association
with the other social sciences and the so-called hard sciences. One of
the costs of these several services was, however, the removal of the
subject several steps further from reality. Not all but a very large
number of the mathematical exercises began (as they still do) with the
words “We assume perfect competition.” In the real world perfect
competition was by now leading an increasingly esoteric existence, if,
indeed any existence at all, and mathematical theory was, in no slight
measure, the highly sophisticated cover under which it managed to
survive.
And economist Steve Keen is even more direct:
There is one striking fact about this whole literature
[of economics], and that is that there is not one single empirical fact
in it.
This is not an issue that can be ignored or passed over.
Understanding the legitimising service that economists provide for the
plundering and looting that our great trusted leaders perpetrate, not
only all around the world but upon their own people too, is vital. The
economists of today fulfil a similar function to the priests of
yesteryear, people who justify the monstrous crimes of rulers, demanding
acceptance from the masses because “there is no alternative”.
In the days of yesteryear, the monstrous crimes of kings and emperors
were shrugged off by the priests as being of “God’s will” — too
mysterious but unquestionably right for any to question. Today the
monstrous crimes of prime ministers and presidents are shrugged off by
the economists as being attributable to “market forces” — too mysterious
but unquestionably right for any to question.
Galbraith once again:
The market, it is said, sets wages, salaries, interest
and prices for suppliers and the sovereign consumer. The market having
this authority, neither the individual not the enterprise can be
possessed of it. To the charge of misuse of power there is the simple,
all-embracing answer: your quarrel is with the market. The paradox of
power in the classical tradition is, once again, that while all agree
that power exists in fact, it does not exist in principle.
In other words, we’ve been conditioned to accept the mythology of
economics in general, and capitalism in particular, as though it was
some timeless natural law, like gravity, which we can do nothing to
change or alter. Yet the truth is that the mythology of economics is an
entirely human construction which we could, and should, mould to serve
the best interests of all humanity – not just the narrow interests of
the 1%, which is the present disastrous situation.
It’s bad enough that economics has assumed such a powerful and
iniquitous role in our lives, but there’s a particular area of economics
where the cynicism is so extreme that few can scarcely believe it when
they first discover it: money.
Money
Here on planet Earth there’s surely no human invention that’s so
widely used, yet so misunderstood, as money. It’s a bit like electricity
(although electricity isn’t nearly so widely spread), in that those of
us who can use it do so all the time, without ever understanding what it
is. Unlike electricity, however, where there’s no real need to
understand it, money could and should be clearly understood by most of
those who use it.
Galbraith hints at why this might be so:
The study of money, above all other fields in economics,
is the one in which complexity is used to disguise truth, or evade
truth, not reveal it.
The mystery of money is strongly enhanced by this complexity of
disguise. Most of us are conditioned to value money very highly; to feel
the importance of having it; to fear not having it; to desire having
more and more of it no matter the cost in years of useless and often
hateful toil, and often broken lives and relationships. Some people work
until the day they die hoarding sizeable quantities of it, yet live
lives of such Spartan austerity and hardship they are scarcely
distinguishable from the poorest and most downcast members of society.
Few people have done more in recent times to reveal the truth about
money than American writer and champion of the Public Banking Institute,
Ellen Brown. Her first book on the subject,
Web of Debt, is an
excellent place to begin understanding this bizarre human invention.
Her writing is easy to read and comprehend, and encourages the reader to
find out more. Finding out more about money is like learning how an
illusionist’s trick is done: glad at first that an apparently
inexplicable mystery is so simply revealed and then, in the case of
money, angered at the brazen confidence-trickery of it, and the
unimaginable global suffering its controllers have caused ever since the
day of its invention.
In 2014 the Bank of England
published
a quite remarkable article. In the space of just two short sentences it
told the truth about modern money in words anyone can understand:
The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:
Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.
In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in
circulation, nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans
and deposits. (5)
The importance of these few words cannot be over-emphasised. As the
quotation implies in the first two lines, the general understanding
about where money comes from – deposits and household savings, or
“multiplied up” by the central bank – is wrong.
In just four words the magic trick of money is exposed: “bank lending
creates deposits.” Money is “created”, quite literally out of thin air.
The enormity of this concept is breathtaking. Unlike every other
important thing we need in order to live – food, water, clothing – which
all have real material substance and must be found or made from other
material substances, most money has no material substance whatsoever:
it’s an artificial fabrication of a bank. Some of it may take a material
shape in the form of metal coins or pieces of paper, but much of it –
most, in fact – doesn’t even do that; it’s invisible, mere computer
records.
Given this fact about money – that it has no finite substance, like
food and water – that it can simply be made out of nothing by someone
working in a bank, why is it so difficult to come by for so many people?
Why is there massive global poverty? And why, on the other hand, are
tiny handfuls of individuals able to have vast quantities of it? Why do
some individuals have more personal wealth than entire countries?
The answer, like many other things that effect our daily lives, is due to how we are ruled.
Those who rule us have, since the beginning of modern history, seen
to it that they tightly control the creation and supply of money. If
these people always acted selflessly and in the best interests of the
societies they rule that would not necessarily be a bad thing – as money
must be managed by someone. But history shows that selflessness is not a
typical quality of rulers, and always acting in the best interests of
others is all but unheard of. This is proven time and again in almost
every society by the fact that rulers nearly always supply themselves
and their closest supporters with vast wealth, whilst the ordinary
masses of those they rule are often left to fight for survival or starve
to death in conditions of the most abject poverty.
It is not the purpose of this essay to prove this claim. Most
thinking people already know it’s true. Nor is it my intention to write
another study on the origins and nature of money: plenty of those can be
found elsewhere. The purpose of this essay is to add to the growing
demand for a revolution in the way money is managed, such that the
grotesque inequalities which have nearly always existed, exist still,
and which are worsening by the day, will be swiftly brought to an end,
and that the full benefits of real economic justice can finally be
turned to the benefit of all humanity and our desperately suffering
planet.
Our starting point should be this: money is literally nothing, a
human construction made from absolutely nothing. Unlike real natural
resources such as air or water – which are finite in quantity – modern
money is infinite its quantity, the amount of which is determined by
human whim.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, because the bottom line is it
works: money made in this way can be and is used to lubricate the wheels
of commerce. The real issue is around the human beings whose whims
decide how much money is created, and how it is used. In other words,
it’s as much a political issue as an economic one.
The rulers of the western world, the so-called “first world”, claim
that the so-called democracies upon which their political systems are
based are the state of the art. There is nothing better and could be
nothing better, they would say, than western democracy. Indeed, they
like to fight wars in other people’s countries, ruining the lives of
tens of millions, to impress upon them the boundless benefits of western
democracy. But when we examine those wonderful democracies – and we do
not need to look very closely – what we actually find is a vast open
sewer of corruption and dystopian horror.
There’s no need to prove this. Many thinking people already know it.
The relevance to this essay lies in the fact that the supposedly
wonderful democracies of the “first world” are not democracies at all.
Our fine western governments, who control not just us but most of the
planet too, are not in any sense controlled by we the people, the
supposed caretakers and beneficiaries of these democracies; they’re
controlled by tiny cabals of all-powerful super-rich people who hide
their existence and purpose behind a screen of lies and disinformation.
Most western “first world” governments are very far from being beacons
of democracy. They’re simply the tools of a secretive world of
unelected, unaccountable, anonymous corporations and investment banks.
The proof of this is provided in every general election where these same
organisations provide the funding for those wishing to be elected, and
then afterwards (no matter who wins the election) when these same
organisations become instrumental in the daily business of government
decision-making as reward for their election funding and generous
campaign donations, through a revolving door between secretive corporate
boardrooms and the corridors of government. Most of the so-called
democracies of the western world are not controlled by we the people,
they’re directly controlled by big business.
Given the central importance of money to the smooth operation of the
economy, this mechanism also directly controls how money is managed.
At the heart of this issue – the proper management of money – lies a
very simple ideological question: should money be managed in such a way
that it benefits the long-term interests of the planet in general, and
human society in particular; or should it be managed so that it serves
the immediate interests of those empowered to manage it?
Most of the history of economics suggests the latter belief is invariably preferred, as Galbraith has pointed out before:
[Money] should be kept scarce and valuable, as those already possessing it had every reason to wish.
Putting an end to this situation will not be easy – not so much
because of any serious problems in alternative solutions, but because of
the vested interests of those powerful individuals who like things very
much as they are.
Nevertheless, good alternative methods of money-management exist; and
the more well-known and talked-about they become the closer society
will be to resolving this problem.
Central to the best-known alternatives is the notion that money is
far too important to be left in the hands of just a tiny handful of
individuals to control – individuals who have never shown any good
reason why they should be so entrusted. Monetary reformers believe
instead that money must be democratised, managed by the state, which
must itself be managed by we the people. We need and must have a
state-owned public bank. Money should be seen as a human right with
government ensuring that all people have enough of it to live secure and
comfortable lives. Given that money, unlike any other vital resource,
is made by human beings from nothing at all, this should not be a
difficult thing to achieve.
Not only is another world possible, she is on her way… On a quiet day, if I listen very carefully, I can hear her breathing.
EnMo Economics
by John Andrews / September 5th, 2016
EnMo economics is an economic theory that suggests the proper
role of the state in the economy is to ensure that all its people have
Enough of everything they need to live secure, comfortable and happy
lives, whilst also ensuring that the private sector is able to supply
more in terms of non-essential products and services. This is a very
important but quite simple distinction to make — although there would
always be some unimportant blurring at the edge where essential meets
non-essential.
This principle applies to money supply too. The proper role of the
state is to take the view that money is a human right, and therefore
that it would ensure that citizens have enough of it to keep themselves
supplied with Enough essential goods and services. The private sector
would be free to operate a private banking system, within the laws of
the state, to provide alternative types of money for citizens to use to
purchase More in the way of non-essentials. Different types of money
circulating in the economy is not an original idea. It was quite normal
for banks to produce and manage their own currencies in the early days
of imperial expansion in the United States, and the principle is still
used today in Britain where Bristol, for example, produces its own
currency, as does Lewes.
The role of private sector banks in the economy is not of much
importance to this essay. It would be a similar role to the one they
have today but much smaller and much better policed by the state. This
essay is mainly about the public banking system in an EnMo economy.
EnMo doesn’t exist anywhere. It could, but it doesn’t. Therefore in
order to explain it further it’s necessary to imagine a very different
world from the one we have. This serves two purposes. Firstly, it makes
it easier to explain the system of EnMo, and, secondly, it provides an
idea for a very different economic model to the one that currently
controls our planet.
The State
The role of the state is central to EnMo, and the state is wholly managed by a
well-informed citizenry
through direct democracy. Although political parties are permitted
there’s little need for them given that the state is operated by direct
democracy rather than representational democracy. Private funding of
election campaigns is forbidden, and the state pays for and manages all
elections.
The Work Ethic
The state pays for all public services using an interest-free
currency it creates and manages through a system of public banks. The
currency is recognised as legal tender throughout the country, and is
based on work.
Each year the state bank produces a volume of currency roughly
equivalent to the amount needed to pay public servants to produce the
essential goods and services the state needs for that year. There is no
unemployment, except for those who choose not to work, or who cannot
work for one reason or another, or who are in full time education or
retired. The state always has good and useful work available for those
who want it providing and maintaining public services.
The state’s role in the economy is confined to providing essential
goods and services. To this end it has its own farms, factories,
transport and storage systems, engineering facilities… etc. It owns and
manages essential utilities such as water supply, communications and
electricity; and it owns and maintains core public services such as
schools, hospitals, justice, parks and recreation, public transport…
etc. All of these public services need human beings to work in them, and
the quantity of money produced each year by the state bank is always
enough to ensure they are all adequately paid.
Every citizen is encouraged to work in public service at least some
of the time. Every young person, on leaving full-time education, is
required to register for work with the Public Works department, a
government agency with responsibility for managing human resources
across the public services, and for ensuring full employment. Once
registered the young citizen must do at least twenty hours work a week,
for two years, performing a variety of duties working in public service.
All new immigrants are required to do the same. Although citizens are
not compelled to work for the state, all are encouraged to continue
doing so throughout their working lives.
In return the citizen wants for nothing. Every necessity of life is
provided by the state, from food and water to comfortable clothing; from
education to health care; from public transport to comfortable and
secure housing…etc. The citizen can have all of these things because
other citizens are doing the work that provides those services, and
given that the state is highly mechanised and computerised, public
servants seldom need to work more than twenty hours a week – but can do
so if they choose.
The twenty hour rule means that citizens have plenty of free time to
do whatever they like. They can do more than twenty hours a week in
public service if they wish to, or they can work in the private sector,
or they can continue their education, or they can just relax with family
and friends.
Proper management of human labour, for the benefit of the whole
society, is the key to the success of the EnMo model. No one is ever out
of work unless they choose to be, or cannot work for some reason. There
is always work to do maintaining public services, and the state can
always pay for this work because it can always produce whatever money it
needs to do so.
Inflation
Because the state is continually producing new money to maintain
public services, a mechanism is needed to ensure that an excess of money
in the economy is avoided. Excess money is undesirable as it reduces
the nominal value of it.
This problem has been averted in the past by using taxation. But
taxation is complicated and difficult to administer fairly. EnMo uses a
different and much simpler mechanism – demurrage.
The main use of money in an EnMo economy is to help facilitate
continual trade in goods and services. In other words, it isn’t meant to
be saved, it’s meant to be spent. Given that the state produces brand
new money every year, money produced in previous years is simply
withdrawn from circulation and slowly destroyed at a steady fixed rate.
Money produced this year, for example, would lose twenty per cent of its
face value, say, each year for the next five years until it no longer
exists, and is no longer recognised as legal tender.
Taxation is currently used, not so much to pay for public services,
but to withdraw money from circulation so that money inflation is
controlled. However, taxation is difficult to manage and administer, and
it has never successfully prevented hoarding of currency by the
super-rich – which prevents money from serving its primary function:
facilitating trade. Demurrage removes these problems. The fact that
money would decay in value to zero, at a known fixed rate, and that
brand new money is continually being produced, makes it pointless to
hoard. Small quantities of it could be saved for short periods of time,
but it would be utterly useless as a long-term investment. Given that
the state produces brand new currency every year, to provide whatever
public services are needed, the fact that old money is continually
expiring is largely irrelevant: there is still plenty of money
circulating in the economy, doing what it’s supposed to do. It therefore
goes without saying that taxation, of EnMo currency – would be
completely unnecessary.
EnMo currency would be useless as a long-term investment, because
savings are not the point it’s intended to serve. EnMo currency is for
facilitating trade, not for long-term saving. Those who wish to acquire
long-term savings would need to use other instruments to do so – which
is pretty much what a lot of people do now: buy things which are hoped
will increase in value, such as property, precious metals, classic cars,
art works, stocks and shares… etc. Whilst money in the form of
long-term savings is pleasant and useful, the vast majority of people
today have too little of it to save for any length of time and must
continually spend the little they get in order to survive. Consistent
with the core principle of EnMo – that the state provides Enough of
everything people need to have secure, comfortable and happy lives – the
state would ensure people have enough money too; if they want More they
will need to turn to the private sector to supply it.
Paper money and metal coins would still be used for small cash
transactions. Each year a new print for the paper money would be
designed, and it too would lose its face-value at twenty per cent a year
until it is worthless, except for trade between money collectors –
pretty much as numismatologists have always done. Coins, being of very
small monetary worth, permanently maintain their face-value, and are
recycled only when damaged.
The Private Sector
Although the EnMo system is essentially a socialist economic model,
it strongly encourages the existence of a free market economy too, for
the purposes of supplying and trading in non-essential goods and
services, the More part of the EnMo system. The need for More, and
different, although unnecessary is a natural human desire, therefore it
should be provided for (within the law), and not suppressed.
The state is primarily concerned with only providing essentials, and
does so without any frills. It provides abundant secure and comfortable
accommodation, for example, but it does not build luxurious housing with
more and larger rooms than one person or small families ever need; it
provides comfortable and practical clothing and footwear, it does not
provide customised designer products; it supplies plentiful and
nutritious vegan food, and potable drinking water through a national
waterworks, it does not supply animal products or bottled water; it
provides free expert legal services, it does not supply overpaid
lawyers; it provides environmentally-friendly vehicles, it does not
supply gas-guzzling automobiles; it provides good and free healthcare
and schools, it does not provide “alternative” healthcare and education
services… and so on.
In other words there’s plenty of scope for providing the goods and
services the state does not consider to be essential, and those who wish
to labour at supplying such non-essentials are free to do so – within
the law of the land.
The private sector is also free to operate private banks, and trade in different currencies – within the law of the land.
No private sector operation, including banks, is guaranteed or underwritten by the state: it succeeds or fails by itself.
The Bigger Picture
The long-term success of an EnMo economy is dependent on its adoption
by a reformed United Nations. At the moment the UN is considerably
hampered in all of its operations and undertakings by being financially
dependent on the United States. If the UN created a new bank to serve a
similar function as a public bank serves in a country, but on a global
scale, it would free itself of its existing financial dependence and
therefore be able to serve a more effective role on the global stage,
and the long term success of EnMo would be more likely.
This new global bank would, like any state-owned public bank using
the EnMo model, be empowered to produce and manage its own currency. But
this currency would be a new reserve currency – a currency which every
country that adopts EnMo would have an automatic supply of, and which
could be used for trading with other countries.
The power of a global reserve currency is very considerable, and it’s
no coincidence that controllers of the global currency also control the
most powerful military machines. But times change. For the first time
in history a concept of international law is slowly developing. Although
it’s still in its infancy, the notion that powerful nations cannot be
allowed to continue ruling by force alone is slowly gaining traction.
There’s still a long way to go, but brute force is slowly but surely
being more widely rejected as acceptable or allowable behaviour, no
matter how powerful a nation may be. The day that rule of law assumes
more authority than force of arms is creeping slowly nearer; and when it
does arrive human beings everywhere, and the planet in general, will be
able to breathe a huge sigh of relief. If the United Nations created
its own bank, to operate a global EnMo model, a great leap forward
towards that day of final liberation would be taken.
The UN is effectively powerless because it largely depends on the US
for its financing. Therefore it’s effectively just another agency
serving the interests of the US Empire. If it was able to finance
itself, through its own bank, the huge potential of the UN as a force
for global freedom, peace and prosperity, and protector of the long-term
interests of our planet could finally be unlocked and realised.
Transition
Moving from where we are today to where we need to be, in an EnMo
world, would not be easy – not through any intrinsic difficulties with
the EnMo model, but because of the powerful vested interests of those
who profit very handsomely from the globalised chaos which has always
been the
modus operandi of empires, vested interests who will
fight tooth and claw to keep what they have. It’s not enough to know
that we have to rid ourselves of these people and the global power
system they control; we also need to know what will replace them. The
solution has two different but related components – a political element
and an economic one. I’ve dealt in detail elsewhere with the political
component, in the People’s Constitution, which provides for a largely
decentralised system of government, controlled by direct democracy where
a WELL-INFORMED citizenry makes all the decisions of government. This
essay has focussed on the economic element. The gulf between where we
are today and where we need to be is massive, and those who would stop
at nothing to prevent us reaching our destination are incredibly
powerful, but as Shelley said:
“We are many, they are few
” , and having a clear idea of what our destination is is a fine place to start.
Every new development has to start somewhere, and few new
developments are perfectly formed from the very beginning. EnMo is not a
wholly new idea. It’s a variation of socialism. Its essential
difference lies in a fairly well-defined separation of the economic
roles of the state and private sector: the state provides essentials
(Enough), the private sector provides non-essentials (More). The state
has no interest in controlling all goods and services, and the private
sector is not permitted to control any essential goods and services.
There is, of course, some overlap at the margins, but conflicting
interests could easily be resolved by citizen tribunals.
Moving from where we are to where we need to be – transition – needs
widespread re-education as its starting point. A sizeable number of
people already know that what we have must go, but there is less
certainty about what will replace it. The People’s Constitution and EnMo
economics are not perfect, but they’re much better than what we have,
and they contain the all-important requirement of flexibility –
mechanisms whereby they could be continually adjusted to suit the
changing needs of society and our planet. It’s not enough to rail
against the system, we also need a clear idea of the changes we’ll make.
This was a weakness of the otherwise wonderful Occupy Movement. Occupy
perfectly identified the problem, but had no commonly agreed solution.
Re-education could put that right. We have already started the journey.
Masses of people are wandering vaguely in the right direction. A new
star in the sky is ready and waiting to help guide their footsteps. It
has no human form, it’s a young binary star full of energy and long-term
promise: the People’s Constitution and EnMo Economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment