Amir Fleischmann — The Myth of the Fiscal Conservative

Austerity measures don’t actually save money. But they do disempower workers. Which is why governments pursue them in the first place.

Jacobin
The Myth of the Fiscal Conservative
Amir Fleischmann

Bill Mitchell — Towards a progressive concept of efficiency – Part 1

Before I present the second part of my discussion about the relevance of re-nationalisation to what I would call a truly progressive policy agenda, we have to take a step backward. I note after the first part – Brexit signals that a new policy paradigm is required including re-nationalisation – there were a few comments posted (and many more E-mails received – apparently readers are happier berating me personally rather than putting their ideas out in the public domain) that I was advocating a return to the ‘bad’ old days of nationalisation where cronyism, inefficiency and trade union bastardry were the norm. The obvious next point was – how can I claim that is progressive and part of the future. In this two part blog (the second part will come tomorrow), I offer a framework for assessing these claims. Today’s blog foscuses on the neo-liberal vision of efficiency and reveals how narrow and biased towards private profit it is. In Part 2 (tomorrow) I will present the progressive vision and how it conditions the way we think of efficiency. Once we break out of the neo-liberal constructs and refocus our attention on Society rather than the individual then the way we appraise policy options also changes – it becomes enriched with new possibilities and understandings. We enter the progressive world and leave behind the austerity nightmare that neo-liberalism has created. We are then able to see how our old conceptions of nationalised industries or public sector job creation are tainted with these neo-liberal biases. And we are then able to see how policy initiatives that invoke scorn from the conservatives and many so-called modern progressives (obsessed with post modern constructs) have a vital role to play in a truly progressive manifesto. I split the discussion into two parts because the blogs are too long as they are.

This blog is part of Part 3 of next book (with co-author, Italian journalist Thomas Fazi), which is nearing completion. Part 3 will present what we are calling a ‘Progressive Manifesto’ to guide policy design and policy choices for governments that are struggling to see a way beyond the neo-liberal macroeconomics which we posit blights any hope of mounting a progressive agenda.

We also hope that the ‘Manifesto’ will empower community groups by demonstrating that the TINA mantra, where these alleged goals of the amorphous global financial markets are prioritised over real goals like full employment, renewable energy and revitalised manufacturing sectors is bereft and a range of policy options, now taboo in this neo-liberal world, are available.…

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Towards a progressive concept of efficiency – Part 1
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Chris Dillow — Managerialism vs innovation

Is creativity no longer an option that increases efficiency and effectiveness of real resources in the long run but also but necessary in a complex adaptive society faced with emergent challenges some of which are existential? Sir Ken Robinson thinks so. R. Buckminster (Bucky) Fuller thought so.

One of the key rationale for libertarianism of both left and right is freedom to explore, which is a necessary condition for development and expression of creativity. Some even so far as to hold that creativity is a key feature of human nature and the ability to develop creativity is a natural right. Those deprived of that right risk failure to become truly human.

This is a key argument against the wages system as being a form of slavery that treats humans as less than human in treating labor as other commodities exchanged for money in commodity markets. It is also a deep critique of the class system in that it prevents all classes from expressing the potential of their species nature owing to the conditions under which people live. See Marx's theory of alienation and Marx's theory of human nature, 

As a life scientist, Roger Erickson is constantly emphasizing the significance of adaptive rate and return on coordination for a complex adaptive system to meet and exceed the challenges of emergence. Broadly speaking, creativity is a necessary condition for this, and incubating creativity is therefore of the highest priority.

The most significant matter is that since creativity is natural, nothing needs to be added. Rather, the obstacles just need to be removed. This can be accomplished through enlightened approaches to education and management that prioritize the important rather than mistaking the trivial for the important.

Stumbling and Mumbling
Managerialism vs innovation
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle

Michael Porter — Why Social Progress Matters

Economic growth has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and improved the lives of many more over the last half-century. Yet it is increasingly evident that a model of human development based on economic progress alone is incomplete. A society which fails to address basic human needs, equip citizens to improve their quality of life, protect the environment, and provide opportunity for many of its citizens is not succeeding. Inclusive growth requires both economic and social progress....

Economics is about efficiency of means and policy is about effectiveness of means to achieve prioritized and integrated objectives. An economy is the material life-support system for a society. The economy exists for the society and not vice versa.

Project Syndicate
Why Social Progress Matters

Michael Porter | Professor at Harvard Business Schoo and chairman of the Advisory Board to the Social Progress Imperative.

Izabella Kaminska — The tribute and organisation theory of value – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

From Part 3:

In this tribute series, I’ve been trying to get people to stop thinking about money in the abstract or intrinsic value sense.
My proposition instead is that money is about muscle. Always has been and always will be. Riches are the product of the authority or gravitas that affords you well being, a.k.a wealth. A muscle, of course, being a biological machine which optimizes energy efficiently so as to create power with. 

But by muscle, I don’t necessarily only mean brute force. I mean all systems that are better organised than other systems and thus stronger and more capable of enforcing their will or alternatively of creating value. Whether that means they are better at collecting favours due, cultivating the land, confiscating assets directly or manipulating you into doing what they want, doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they are just better at doing it. 

Not to say that reciprocity doesn’t encourage value creation but simply that when it happens it’s mostly incentivized by a need to join forces so as to organise against a stronger enemy, whether that enemy is a stronger person, a nation or nature itself. 

Dizzynomics

The tribute and organisation theory of value – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Izabella Kaminska

Yet Another Claim That The US Is An Oligarchy, Not A Democracy: So Much For Rational Agents Having Access To ALL Necessary Pricing (or other) Data! :)

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson.)

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

Although it always worries many when a study group goes to the length of stating that they ran a "scientific" study.

Semantics.

Everything is "scientific," so just look at the details of the study terms and weigh relevance for yourself.

Note, that it can seem problematic when articles in peer-refereed research journals are "leaked" to the public ahead of actual publishing (since it's not clear if all the reviews are in). When is that crossing the borders between politics, PR and double-blind research studies? Sometimes when it's politically convenient? Sometimes when the TEMPO of discussion outweighs worries about validity? C'est la Vie. There's no reliable answer.

OpenSourcing the article in question to the lay public, for full AND TIMELY public review, certainly helps the rate of dissemination of public discourse, and public learning from the diverse components of itself. Overall, that's why most of nature openly broadcasts most data, and then races to recognize new patterns and discern their implications for new contexts.

In this case, we have both occurring, though asynchronously. The authors of this study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is eavailable from their edu website as a pdf, entitled:

"Testing Theories of American Politics."

So why bother with subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal operating behind a paywall? One reason is simply the layers of tenure-track processes that this publishing process involves, for both authors and reviewers. University academic operations are quite as due for a systemic overhaul as our banking system is. Most people outside of academia simply aren't familiar with the arcane, outmoded operations involved in University management.

Given all that, go get 'em, USA. How do YOU spell "D.E.M.O.C.R.A.Z.Y?"

Personally, I think this article should be discussed by every classroom & household in the country. We'll worry about how scientific it is throughout the ongoing discussion. Whether oligarchy or democracy, the big point to remember is that success tracks the quality (including tempo!) of distributed decision making. That reminds us that it's always a war between Central Planning (by any other name), and effective Democracy.

Chris Dillow — Efficiency Vs Sanctity

The point here is that efficiency is not an incontestable value. It collides with others, the belief in the sanctity of some goods.

Economists tend to have a tin ear here - they just don't hear the arguments against efficiency....

I don't say all this to take sides. I do so merely to show that values are contestable, but that a debate about them is possible.

Stumbling and Mumbling
Efficiency Vs Sanctity

Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle (UK)

I would frame it the way that Peter F. Drucker did, "Efficiency is doing things right and effectiveness is doing the right things." Effectiveness involves choosing goals and this choice involves normative criteria, i.e., "values." efficiency is subordinate to effectiveness, since efficiency is about means and effective about goals, and means are subordinate to goals.

"Socialized medicine" most cost-effective: Study

NHS among developed world's most efficient health systems, says study. Report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine finds health service second only to Ireland for cost-effectiveness....

Among the 17 countries considered, the United States healthcare system was among the least efficient and effective.... 

Looking at elderly patients, the difference was even more stark with the best performers – Ireland, the UK and New Zealand – having health systems that were three times more effective and efficient than the worst – Switzerland, Portugal and the US....Read it at The Guardian (UK)

Pritchard points out that even Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and father of market-based ideology, thought the state was "probably better" at health and education. 

NHS among developed world's most efficient health systems, says study
Randeep Ramesh

(h/t Michael Moore via Twitter)

The dumbest idea in the world

"There is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer."Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management

Read it at Forbes

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

by Steve Denning