Showing posts with label left libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label left libertarian. Show all posts

Saturday, April 28, 2007

The Importance of Savings

In an a interesting article on the Austrian School of Economics and the Great Depression, the author contends that what is necessary to resolve a depression or large scale recession is to increase savings, allowing for real investment funds to accrue.

The reality of this is clear that with the Depression and after, until the late 1960's, most Canadians were savers. Today most are in debt. Which means that a serious downturn in the economy is going to be a disaster.

However as the author points out the way to mitigate that disaster is by increasing savings. The savings culture that resulted after the Great Depression attests to this. However in that case it was a harsh lesson learned the hard way. And unfortunately in our easy credit consumer culture it is one that is forgotten in this long boom.


Austrian Business Cycle Theory: A Corporate Finance Point of View

The lesson is that as long as output prices stay up (through Keynesian
policies) and the Monetarists keep interest rates from rising (or maybe push them lower), if input prices are rising (a real resource crunch), we will have a recession. And the only way out is through the painful but necessary liquidation process.

The best means to transform malinvestments into viable economic activities is
through increasing savings. This means that one of the government’s most effective
policies is to cut taxes on the savers. Those who are savers are usually labeled as “the rich.” Unfortunately, the prescriptions of “get government out of the market” or a “tax cut for the rich” tend not to be politically popular. However, the idea of “tax cuts are for the tax payers” has had some success.


And while he praises tax breaks for savers he mistakenly identifies them with the rich. Which is currently true, because only a relative handful of the population in the G20 countries have access to liquid capital. The average person who used to save, such as my parents, now has easy access to credit and thus is leveraged into debt. However to have a successful saver economy you need the masses to have access to enough surplus cash to encourage saving.

Savings by the wealthy elite while larger than the average persons, are not nearly as effective as a mass saver culture, as witnessed by Japanese savings numbers. And while various explanations are given for Japan's long recession, the reality is that what kept it from flat out crashing as bad as the Wall Street Crash of 1929, with the same global impact, was the savings accrued by the average Japanese.

The way to solve this problem of easy credit, and its recessionary effects on the business cycle is not to expand capital gains tax breaks, or give business tax breaks, or even to encourage investments in RRSPs or Income Trusts, but rather to eliminate all taxes on incomes of $100,000 or less.

The real savers, the folks who saved capitalism according to the Austrians, are our parents and grandparents who were cruelly forced to learn this lesson, to save in order to survive.

In order to encourage individual saving in a credit card debt based consumer economy, tax cuts, not tax credits, are required for the working class. Currently tax breaks for most folks put anywhere from a few hundred to a couple of thousand dollars back in their pockets come tax day, which is Monday.

Now imagine if you actually had the income tax from your income, you could invest in saving. Instead of a paltry hundred or even a thousand bucks this could be anywhere from $5000 to $10,000 to as high as $25,000 annually.

Further if EI were run as a joint investment cooperative between Employers and Workers, without the government plundering it for it's surplus costs could be reduced, And with a profitable investment strategy put more money in workers pockets, while also insuring a better and fairer process for collecting EI. This has already occurred with the CPP. Ironically it is the NDP and the Bloc who support this idea of joint ownership and elimination of the government from EI.

Furthermore such a joint cooperative EI program could offer alternative financial opportunities such as micro credit for self employment opportunities, as well as the usual Guaranteed Income that we associate with EI currently. It would allow for broader education and training opportunities, while not costing as much as the current program does, because the government would not have access to the profit, surplus.

Similarly we should eliminate Workers Compensation Boards and replace them with a joint labour employer cooperative, that would not have the government as its arbitrator or with its hands in the pockets of workers and employers as currently occurs.

A failure to come up with adequate support for an injured worker, would result in the option of the worker to sue the employer in civil court, which is currently not available with the state as the arbitrator. WCB payments would then decrease under such a joint management and investment plan.

It is often argued that labour relations is problematic because it is an adversarial relationship between workers and employers, unions and corporations. While this is true, the real advocate of this adversarial relation is the state who wishes to arbitrate between the two parties. Unions are the working classes voice in labour relations with the bosses and their associations and cartels. The state is never neutral, as we saw with the recent CN strike. It interferes in the natural social relationship between workers and their bosses.

In fact one has to ask why we need the government period. We have common laws, we have workers and employers, and they can resolve their conflicts through negotiations, arbitration, strikes, or mediation. They can cooperate as well for mutual aid and benefit, such as with works councils, joint management labour pension and benefit funds, EI, Workers Compensation, etc. The State is not required for a cooperative commonwealth.

As Samuel Gompers pointed out long ago;

The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit

The more thoroughly the workers are organized and federated the better they are prepared to enter into a contest, and the more surely will conflicts be averted. Paradoxical as it may appear, it is nevertheless true, that militant trade unionism is essential to industrial peace.

What we have endeavored to secure in industrial relations is industrial peace. When industrial justice prevails, industrial peace will follow. It is a result and not an end in itself.

We want a minimum wage established, but we want it established by the solidarity of the working men themselves through the economic forces of their trade unions, rather than by any legal enactment. . . . We must not, we cannot, depend upon legislative enactments to set wage standards. When once we encourage such a system, it is equivalent to admitting our incompetency for self-government and our inability to seek better conditions.

To strengthen the state, as Frederick Howe says, is to devitalize the individual. . . . I believe in people. I believe in the working people. I believe in their growing intelligence. I believe in their growing and persistent demand for better conditions, for a more rightful situation in the industrial, political, and social affairs of this country and of the world. I have faith that the working people will better their condition far beyond what it is today. The position of the organized labor movement is not based upon misery and poverty, but upon the right of workers to a larger and constantly growing share of the production, and they will work out these problems for themselves.

It is not the organizations of labor which take away from the workers their individual rights or their sovereignty. It is modern industry, modern capitalism, modern corporations, and modern trusts. . . . The workingmen in modern industries lose their individuality as soon as they step into a modern industrial plant, and that individuality which they lose is regained to them by organization--they gain in social and industrial importance by their association with their fellow workmen.




Also See:

Not Your Usual Left Wing Rant

State-less Socialism

Fair Share



Tags
, , , , , , ,
, ,

, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 22, 2007

"Are Anarchists Thugs?"

A follow up on my; " Why The Conservatives Are Not Libertarians" in this case an explanation as to why todays right wingers who call themselves Libertarians are not. Because homegrown individualist anarchism which was Libertarianism was replaced after Benjamin Tuckers death with the pro capitalist ideology and idealization of Russian reactionary Ayn Rand and later still with the rantings of the Anti-Labour Theory of Value; Austrian School of Economics.

Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: Liberty & The Strategy Of Anarchism

In an article entitled "Are Anarchists Thugs?", Tucker offered a breakdown by profession of Liberty's anarchists. The greatest part proves to be of the professional/intellectual class; the remainder includes independent manufacturers and merchants, farmers, artisans and skilled workers. We see that, although the anarchists - especially of the Liberty group - were not latter-day Jeffersonians in any deep sense, they owned some characteristics in common. The anarchists' hard-core supporters were the socio-economic equivalents of Jefferson's yeoman-farmers and craftsworkers: a freeholder - artisan - independent merchant class allied with free-thinking professionals and intellectuals. These groups - in Europe as well as America - had socio-economic independence, and through their desire to maintain and improve their relatively free positions, had also the incentive to oppose the growing encroachments of the capitalist State.

Individualist anarchism, although suffering from the repression directed against the anarchists in general, appears to have dwindled into political insignificance largely because of the erosion of its political-economic base, rather than from a simple failure of its strategy. With the impetus of the Civil War, capitalism and the State had too great a head start on the centralization of economic and political life for the anarchists to catch up. This centralization reduced the independence of the intellectual/professional and merchant artisian groups that were the mainstay of the Liberty circle.

In 1911 Tucker judged that this centralizing process had created an accumulation of wealth in the "trusts" that had superseded their need for the "four monopolies." He argued that "even the freest competition" could not presently hope to destroy the trusts, which could afford to sacrifice large sums of money to remove new competition. Tucker thought that only political or revolutionary forces could now whittle down this concentration of capital. He warned, however, that the anarchistic economic solution - "and there is no other solution" - must be taught to following generations. In the meantime, anarchists who aid the "propaganda of State Socialism or [violent] revolution make a sad mistake indeed, "hastening the advent of revolution before the people were prepared to do without the State."


See:

The Era Of The Common Man

Once More On the Fourth

Keep Coulter I'll Take Paglia

New Libertarian Journal

State-less Socialism

The Right To Be Greedy

A Lesson in Mutual Aid

Political Imbalance

Libertarian Anti-Imperialism


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 20, 2007

Why The Conservatives Are Not Libertarians


You are not a libertarian when you promote the Security State and Law and Order;

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

Moreover, it follows that with any exercise of State power, not only the exercise of social power in the same direction, but the disposition to exercise it in that direction, tends to dwindle. Mayor Gaynor astonished the whole of New York when he pointed out to a correspondent who had been complaining about the inefficiency of the police, that any citizen has the right to arrest a malefactor and bring him before a magistrate. "The law of England and of this country," he wrote, "has been very careful to confer no more right in that respect upon policemen and constables than it confers on every citizen." State exercise of that right through a police force had gone on so steadily that not only were citizens indisposed to exercise it, but probably not one in ten thousand knew he had it.

Albert Jay Nock: Our Enemy, the State, 1935, Chap. 1




See:

Leo Strauss and the Calgary School

Post Modern Conservatives.

Paranoia and the Security State

Our New Police State



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 15, 2007

A Great Canadian Libertarian Post


J. Todd Ring writes;
"On Libertarianism: Right & Left"

Libertarianism is a term that has come to be identified with the right, with limited government, ideals of freedom, free market capitalism and laissez fair economics, however, the term originally meant libertarian socialism, a libertarianism of the left. The distinction of two kinds of libertarianism, or more appropriately, a spectrum of views within what is called libertarianism, is important. Both right and left libertarianism have a deep skepticism about excessive concentrations of state power, encroachments of government power in the lives of individuals and communities, and a belief that ultimately, “That government is best which governs the least.” Beyond this agreement, there are considerable differences between libertarianism of the right and that of the left. But before the distinctions between left and right libertarianism can be discussed, we need to clarify just what is essential to a libertarian perspective, and also, to distinguish between the ideal and the immediate in terms of advocating or working towards specific goals for human society.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,