Showing posts with label production. Show all posts
Showing posts with label production. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

SYSTEMS MATTER Part 10:The Magic of Free Enterprise

Founder, Project C.U.R.E.
Author, The Happiest Man in the World: Life Lessons from a Cultural Economist


By the early 1990s, I was spending a lot of time in the Marxist/Communist countries of the world: Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Romania, and even the philosophically tainted countries of South America. In the Soviet Union, members of the average household spent nearly forty hours per week standing in lines attempting to procure just the basic necessities for the family.

In places like Ukraine I would occasionally stand in lines with my new friends just to see what it felt like to participate in the economic debacle of Marx, Engles, Lenin, and Trotsky. We would line up behind the old faded blue military flat-bed trucks, draped with a swatch of gray canvas, and wait our turn to have a government comrade hand down the loaves of bread or canned vegetables . . . if they still had any left.

Marx and Lenin had not only scoffed at, but had officially outlawed, anything that even smacked of free market, free enterprise, or portrayed the slightest capitalistic nuance. With that stance they negated any advantage of market-generated information that would have helped guide them with their economy.

There was no concept of economic growth or production. They had squelched any intrinsic market signals and had shut off any built-in factors for motivation and incentive to help the economic system run smoothly. They had locked themselves into a system that glorified mediocrity and stymied excellence. That was the price they were paying so that they could retain absolute control over a centralized economic system of redistribution. They really believed that they could figure it all out by themselves and control the attitudes and actions of millions of individual workers in their centralized system. But, they could never get it right.
  • The flash of genius regarding the magic of prices had been observed and written down by Adam Smith, and it had been available to the socialists for a hundred years. Its efficiency had been well documented and not hidden at all from the public. Smith had recognized that the prices that emerged from individuals entering into voluntary transactions in a free market could silently coordinate the activities of millions of people almost immediately. Each individual would be seeking the area of his own interest, but his actions would result in an experience of unintended consequences where everybody ended up better off. Those transactions sent silent signals out to the entire economic system. Those signals guided the actions of the other individuals in the economic system so that they could make enlightened decisions on their own without the necessity of any politburo or centralized Marxist Gosplan telling them what to do.
In Milton Friedman’s bestselling book, Free to Choose, he brilliantly explains the three elements of Prices: Prices perform three functions in organizing economic activity. First, they transmit information; second, they provide an incentive to adopt those methods of production that are least costly and thereby use available resources for the most highly valued purposes; third, they determine who gets how much of the product – the distribution of income. These three functions are closely interrelated. (1)

Prices are the nervous system of the free enterprise economy. Individuals like to buy at the lowest price possible, and sell at the highest price possible. At some point there is a mark where the seller is willing to sell his product and the buyer is willing to buy the product, and each feels that he is coming out of the deal better off. If that mark cannot be struck, then the deal fails to be consummated. If agreement is made, then price for the product or service has been established. Additionally, the successful transaction encourages the individuals to pursue yet more transactions in order to feel better off again and again, thus expanding the total economy.

In experiencing the Gosplan in action in the old Soviet Union, I observed that there were constantly surpluses of the wrong things and shortages of the things needed. In Armenia, my new friends at the shoe factory pointed out that the Gosplan would try to figure out how many comrades needed to plant enough hectares in hay to feed enough horses and cattle to provide sufficient leather hides to be delivered to the shoe factory for the making of military boots. They always got it wrong somewhere along the line. They would experience a drought (that was always one of their favorite excuses for failure) where there was not enough water to grow sufficient hay for feed, or they would grow so many tons of hay that it would spoil or mold and have to be discarded.

In a free enterprise economic system we do not observe many incidents of surplus or shortage or inconsistent availability of products. Prices make that happen. That is because prices balance the demand for goods and services with their supply. The quantity that the consumers want to purchase is assured to match the quantity producers want to sell. The balance between supply and demand is no accident. Prices make it come out right each time . . . unless there is interference by some control-seeking government entity. Even in times of economic upset or disaster, goods and services are available at the present market price.

To pursue our shoe factory example, let’s return to the Soviet Union’s Gosplan and see how it differs from an economic system of free enterprise. If a retailer needs to purchase from the open market certain numbers and styles of shoes in order to advertise and sell them from his spring shoe catalogue, he may contact a shoe manufacturer and enter into an agreement to purchase said shoes to be delivered to a certain location by a certain date for a certain price. Each party is free to enter into such an agreement. As soon as the shoe manufacturer commits to fill the order for the retailer, he immediately secures the necessary leather to fill the order.

But, let’s say the manufacturer is dilatory and waits for a period of time to purchase the leather. And in the meantime there is a drought, (or some other kind of impediment in the leather supply). Immediately information goes out into the marketplace regarding the shortage of leather, and the cost of the remaining available leather supply goes up. But leather is still available at the new price. The cattle growers in Texas receive the free information and may decide to not sell the entire cow to their beef steak market in Japan, but, rather, butcher the cattle in Texas and save the leather hides to sell to the shoe industry, and just send the custom steaks to Japan that year. The cattleman’s neighbor hears of the leather shortage and decides that next year he will switch his ranch operation from growing sorghum to raising cattle, because the selling price of leather has increased sufficiently and he now has an opportunity to make a handsome profit.

The prices of shoes for the spring season are going to go up. There will not be a shortage of shoes, but the potential customers will have to make a decision as to whether or not they want to pay a higher price. Since the company with the spring shoe catalogue has a firm contract with the manufacturer for the leather products at a lower price, he stands to make a better profit from raising his shoe prices, or he has an edge on the market and can afford to sell his shoes faster at a lower price than his competitors who had to increase all their prices because of the increased leather costs.

But the manufacturer now has to scramble and find some leather available at the price that existed when he signed his contract with the retailer, or he will experience a sad loss.

The manufacturer grabs the Wall Street Journal and turns to the commodity price page in search of leather. All this information is free and available in the open marketplace. He locates a leather supplier in Brazil who is willing to sell him the leather at the previous year’s price and even assume part of the shipping costs. The manufacturer has covered his potential losses and can fulfill his contract with the spring shoe catalogue. All that information exchange and human initiative happened almost instantaneously, without needing to be gathered, sorted, and distributed to everybody in the economy. Everyone had access to all the information, but those who did not have a personal interest in the leather or shoe industry could simply ignore the information and go on with their own interests. There is no way in God’s green earth that all that could have taken place under Gosplan!

Of course, all the cattle ranchers who jumped in to raise more cattle and sell the leather at the increased prices, now have the prerogative of going back to raising sorghum. But everybody in the system had the right to pursue his or her desires to become better off. Everybody in the system had instant and pertinent information available making it possible to pursue those free choices.

Nothing has ever been designed to match the efficiency of free enterprise. That is because nobody designed the free market. Nobody manages the free market. Nobody controls the free market. It is a phenomenon that registers thousands of personal preferences in a nanosecond.

It can deliver information that can peg the market value of a million different products all at the same time. It can inform people in every corner of the earth what to produce, when to produce it, how much to produce, and how much to buy at any given time. It can even let you know where to go to search out job opportunities within your scope of interest. If none of that information is pertinent to you . . . you can simply ignore all of it!

All of that instant information is not mined, gathered, filtered, stored and made available by one individual or one big box superstore of technology. All that collaborative wisdom is freely made available and is the result of millions of individuals working in union with one another while seeking to be better off within the scope of their own interest.

The anomaly tagged as free market that operates within the phenomenon of free enterprise just simply exists in all of its sophistication wherever individuals exist who have been granted freedom of choice in areas of culture and economics. Those are the individuals who have a deep desire to end up better off. That phenomenon of free enterprise is a precious gift to the world!

Next Week: SYSTEMS MATTER Part 11: Profit and Loss
  •  Profits
  •  Losses
  •  Wages
          (Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics) 

© Dr. James W. Jackson   
Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House
  
www.jameswjackson.com 

Dr. James W. Jackson often describes himself as "The Happiest Man in the World." A successful businessman, award-winning author and humanitarian, Jackson is also a renowned Cultural Economist and international consultant, helping organizations and governments to apply sound economic principals to the transformation of culture so that everyone is "better off."

As the founder of Project C.U.R.E., Dr. Jackson traveled to more than one hundred fifty countries assessing healthcare facilities, meeting with government leaders and "delivering health and hope" in the form of medical supplies and equipment to the world's most needy people. Literally thousands of people are alive today as a direct result of the tireless efforts of Project C.U.R.E.'s staff, volunteers and Dr. Jackson. 

To contact Dr. Jackson, or to book him for an interview or speaking engagement: press@winstoncrown.com

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

AT THE INTERSECTION: COMPONENTS OF PRODUCTION

Founder, Project C.U.R.E.
Author, The Happiest Man in the World: Life Lessons from a Cultural Economist


In economics the term utility refers to the satisfaction people get from the goods and services they consume and the activities they pursue, i.e. what it is that makes them happy. In order to understand how the system works, it is important to go back to the simple basics or starting blocks that are required to serve the interests of the people. There are four general categories of economic resources that are traditionally considered components of production: Land, Labor, Capital. and the Entrepreneur.

I suppose you could say that, “In the beginning” there were only two components of production: land and labor. Then the fellow doing all the labor, named “Adam”, figured it out that he would benefit greatly by taking a very sharp stone to kill the wild animal he was going to use for meat, instead of beating it or strangling it. He also enhanced the utility of the process by using yet a sharper stone as a knife to remove the hairy, tough hide of the animal before cooking it or trying to barter it to one of his buddies. At that point, he took a giant step into the position of the entrepreneur while also utilizing components of capital, thus making it four components of production rather than just two. Now back to the serious components of traditional economics.

LAND

By the term land economists mean nature, natural resources, the earth plus the heavens, and the seas. Simply stated, land is God’s gift to the children of men (Psalm 115:16). It is the untouched earth as we find it. That economic term includes everything on, above, and below the surface of the earth. It includes streams, lakes, minerals, forests, air, space, wild animals, plants, fossil fuels, and even rocks brought back from the moon . . . everything that man finds in his environment that is not a product of mankind’s labor.

Two things to remember about land and all things considered natural resources: First, they are found in nature and that no human effort has been used to make or alter them. Second, they can be used for the production of goods and services.

LABOR

The resource component called labor consists of the physical and mental talents of individuals used in producing goods and services. The services of airline pilots, teachers, welders, loggers, retail clerks, mechanics, professional football players, or rocket scientists are all included under the general heading of labor. Generally speaking, a person’s ownership in his or her own unique labor power is the greatest factor of production under that person’s command. That power is at the person’s disposal for exchanging in the marketplace for the many goods and services desired but not yet owned. The terms, free labor market or competitive labor market refer to a person’s being able to exchange or sell his labor power to the highest bidder on the one hand, and the bidder being able to exchange or purchase labor power at the best terms he can find.

CAPITAL

Capital is wealth intended to produce more wealth and is not yet in the hands of the consumer but still somewhere in the process stage of producing more wealth or income. In economic thought, capital, or capital goods includes all manufactured aids used in producing consumer goods and services. Included are factories, warehouses, distribution centers, transportation facilities, as well as items like stone knives, hammers, wrenches, drill presses, industrial robots, or other pieces of machinery. Economists refer to the purchase of capital goods as investments. Capital goods differ from consumer goods because consumer goods satisfy wants directly, whereas capital goods do so indirectly by aiding in the production of consumer goods.

The term capital as used by economists does not refer to money, but to tools and other productive equipment. Because money produces nothing by itself, economists do not include it as a basic economic resource.

THE ENTREPRENEUR

The entrepreneur takes the initiative in combining the resources of land, labor, and capital to produce a good or a service. Both a sparkplug and a catalyst, the entrepreneur is the driving force behind production and the agent who combines the other resources in what is hoped will be a successful business venture. The entrepreneur’s time, effort, and abilities invested do not guarantee any degree of success or profit. The risks may result in losses rather than rewards, and possibly, the entrepreneur will put at risk not only his or her invested assets but those of associates and stockholders as well.

But nothing happens without the entrepreneur . . . a special human resource who takes an idea and attempts to make an economic profit from it by combining all other factors of production. The entrepreneur is the individual who also takes on all of the risks and rewards of the business.

Students sometimes struggle with the concept of entrepreneur. It is a tricky word to spell and pronounce. It is a bit ironic that it was the French who attached the name that stuck to the functional concept, but it is a great word. For me, the easiest way to visualize and remember the function of the entrepreneur is to recall its simplicity. The only thing an entrepreneur really does is to take something of a lesser value from the economic system and place it back into the system at a higher value. That is all an entrepreneur does.

The primitive man simply took a common rock out of the system and returned it back into the economic system as a stone knife.

I feel blessed to be considered an entrepreneur. In our days of real estate development we performed a very simple and rewarding task. We took out of the economy struggling ranches that were not producing very much wealth and delivering almost no tax revenue to the county or state. We developed them into beautiful recreational and business sites in Colorado’s ski country and entered those sites back into the economy at a higher value.

When it was time to meet international needs for medical supplies and equipment for hospitals and clinics in lesser developed countries around the world, Project C.U.R.E. simply removed out of our economic system medical items of lower value, did a bit of enhancement and reinserted those medical items back into the international economy where they were desperately needed, and thousands and thousands of lives were saved in the process.

Wealth is generated from production. Poverty is perpetuated through non-production. It is very important for us to understand the utility that flows from the basic components of production: Land, Labor, Capital, and the Entrepreneur. 

Next week: Cultural Components 
 
(Research ideas from Dr. Jackson's new writing project on Cultural Economics)

© Dr. James W. Jackson  
Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

www.drjameswjackson.com  

Dr. James W. Jackson often describes himself as "The Happiest Man in the World." A successful businessman, award-winning author and humanitarian, Jackson is also a renowned Cultural Economist and international consultant, helping organizations and governments to apply sound economic principals to the transformation of culture so that everyone is "better off."

As the founder of Project C.U.R.E., Dr. Jackson traveled to more than one hundred fifty countries assessing healthcare facilities, meeting with government leaders and "delivering health and hope" in the form of medical supplies and equipment to the world's most needy people. Literally thousands of people are alive today as a direct result of the tireless efforts of Project C.U.R.E.'s staff, volunteers and Dr. Jackson. 

To contact Dr. Jackson, or to book him for an interview or speaking engagement: press@winstoncrown.com

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

POWER OF STORY: ECONOMICS VS POLITICS

Founder, Project C.U.R.E.
Author, The Happiest Man in the World: Life Lessons from a Cultural Economist

We are a people who love to extol the truth. The problem is we deal mostly in half-truths, and the problem with that is that we almost always get hold of the wrong half. Maybe it’s a habit . . . maybe it’s strategy . . . maybe our strategy has become a habit. But we usually choose the part of truth that allows us to successfully defend what we really wanted to do in the first place.

The problem seems to be particularly rife within the disciplines of statistics and economics: “What would you like this to say?” A great example can be found in the discussion we have been having regarding Bathtub Economics. A gaggle of economists can be gathered around concentrating on trying to smooth out the gaps in production and employment. Why are there gaps and why do the short business cycles seem to go in a boom and then bust fashion? Simply because the owner invests his money in facilities, then invests in materials to make his product, and goes out and hires enough employees to produce the goods. That’s what he is supposed to do.

He is such a good manager and efficient businessman that his production runs smoothly, and soon he has made enough pieces of his product to fill his warehouses. He has also saturated the market, having sold his product to all who needed to buy it at that time. He now has to stop and let his sales catch up with what he has produced and put in his warehouses. So he stops buying material and sends his workers home until he needs them to crank the machinery back up and start producing his product for the market again.

So the gaggle of economists put together a matrix to help the owner manage his production better. “Pace yourself,” they tell the owner. “Don’t stock up on so much material all at once and don’t hire all the laborers to get the job done so fast that you have to keep sending them home and make them unemployed. Stretch out the gaps and the economy will run more smoothly.”

The economists, however, would have said it in jargon like, “workers and machinery will be idled when there are no markets for their goods and services. When aggregate expenditures fall, then total output and employment decreases. When aggregate expenditures rise, then total output and employment increases.” Don’t hold it against them because they talk funny. That’s what economists are supposed to do.

Well, economist Keynes from Cambridge, England, was in another gaggle of economists. They did not believe that the simple ups and downs and gaps of the business cycle could be worked out by themselves. He argued that the decline in the investment in materials and workers would result in insufficient total spending, and would result in serious reduction in output and massive unemployment. Keynes said that recessions and depressions would not likely correct themselves and argued that it was imperative that government must be in charge of stabilizing an economy.

The fact that the Great Depression did not cure itself made Keynes appear very brilliant and opened the door wide for the acceptance of outlandish government intervention. The depression was held up as evidence certain to prove that capitalism and the free market system were inherently defective and needed to be replaced by an efficient centralized economic system.

Up to this point in our story there have been a couple of opinions, and simple economic models have been presented to explain them. One model encourages the smoothing out of the boom and bust cycles in a slow, moderate, disciplined way. The other insists on immediate and radical intervention through the means of government involvement. That’s pretty straight- forward economic theory being presented. That’s what everybody is supposed to do. But now enter the game changers.

Why is it so difficult to choose and administer economic policy? Why do such straightforward economic concepts and models wreak such havoc on individual citizens, policies, governments, and cultures? Because, it has everything to do with the phenomenon of politics!

We are a people who love to extol the idea of truth. The problem is we deal mostly in half-truths, and the problem with that is that we almost always get hold of the wrong half. Maybe it’s a habit . . . maybe it’s strategy . . . maybe our strategy has become a habit. But we usually choose the part of truth that allows us to successfully defend what we really wanted to do in the first place. I refer to it as the political perversion of the practical principle of the apparent problem. I talk funny, too. But I am loveable.

As the little host mouse was narrating the imaginary story taking place in the Governor’s Mansion in Albany , New York, the future president wasn’t really concerned about how the boom and bust cycles of business could be worked out. He saw the magic of taking deficit spending of the government that could be transposed into real money and exchanging that for dependency and votes to secure the positions of control of both the political machinery of the nation and the vulnerable economy. As soon as he could manage to get fifty percent of the voters dependant on his subsidies, in exchange for their vote, there would be no need to negotiate with such concepts as capitalism, free market, or democracy as it had been known. All he had to do was keep the bathtub full.

As many of you know, my international travels of the past took me many times to the country of North Korea, where I had meetings with the top leaders. They don’t like to be referred to as North Korea. “We are DPRK. That stands for Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” I would always thank them for the correction. They would continue, “We are more of a democracy than you are. We have more elections in our Republic in any given year than you do.” I would smile graciously and pat them on the arm and tell them that our words were descriptors of two different birds. At some time I would enjoy discussing the two different birds.” That would usually elicit a bit of a frown.

If democracy is viewed as a simple function to measure a one-vote-over-50% of those voting, then we are dealing with another half truth, and we will more than likely get hold of the wrong half.

There never was a mystery as to why it was important to lift the well-known English economist Keynes to a near position of divinity. An outside, once-removed authority had to be established and elevated to a position of the high moral and intellectual authority, who would add the sanctity to the action that the politicians wanted to pursue in the first place. Roosevelt needed Keynes and Keynes needed Roosevelt. Keynes’ reputation remained intact throughout the Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and part of the Nixon administrations, and is now back again. The economic and political agendas of the gaggles were so closely tied together that even sunlight could not reveal a crack.

Naturally, it would be enjoyable for a politician to be able to hand out benefits and subsidies to the citizens in exchange for their votes and support. That is especially true when included in the package would be the lessening of personal responsibility and industriousness of the citizens. One huge problem for the politician is if he should in the future ever try to take back or withhold anything that is promised, or perceived to be promised, in exchange for the constituent’s vote.

Another disadvantage to the politician is the pressure that comes along with needing to come up with massive projects worthy of justifying the massive amounts of deficit spending necessary to keep the bathtub full. 

John F. Kennedy was the son of Joseph P. Kennedy, a wealthy businessman and importer of liquor. Roosevelt appointed Joseph P. Kennedy to head the newly organized Securities and Exchange Commission. Kennedy had been very effective in raising campaign funds for the Roosevelt elections. When John F. Kennedy was eventually elected to the presidency of the U.S., he was faced with an even larger burden: to keep the bathtub full with deficit spending. What was the mind-and-heart-challenging project presented to the citizens that would gain approval to allow the bathtub to be filled with deficit spending money? It was NASA, of course. Why was it so necessary to beat the “Ruskies” to the moon? Ooops . . . here comes another half-truth.

During the Johnson administration it was the emotional and powerful War on Poverty, along with Lady Bird’s bottomless expense account to Beautify America. Carter and the Clintons, as well as the Bushes, almost lost the bathtub with healthcare, the Arabs, and in the final hours of George W. Bush’s presidency, the mailing out of checks to everyone to spend and stimulate the economy.

Have you recognized the fact that the simple economic model in the beginning was to smooth out the gaps in the sometimes bumpy business cycle? But politicizing, and the involving and promoting the government in the model, transferred the ballgame into a whole different stadium. Each occasion of filling the bathtub with deficit government spending required a larger and more complicated program, where the swing of the cycle got bigger, deeper, and more explosive. Also, have you noticed that at the completion of the particular cycle it has nearly always taken an international crisis or war to catch up on the deficit extravaganza?

The grand expenditures of the New Deal’s Federal Relief Administration, the CCC, the FTC, the RFC, the AAA, the NIRA, the SEC, the WPA, the TVA, the NRA, or the thousands of Presidential Executive Orders did not lift the nation out of the Great Depression. It took the massive ramping up for the winning of World War II, the equities of the lives of millions of young men, the spending of unmeasured natural resources, and the alteration of the nation’s culture and employment methods to break the back of the Great Depression.

In order for a society to enjoy a successful economy, it has to produce something. Conflict and wars have a way of focusing attention on nationalism and self-preservation of a culture. That emotional thinking has a way of justifying wars. Such concentration allows for massive war-time production and employment that eventually stabilizes the economy because the economy is forced to produce something. What a sad economic model.

Free food stamps, market baskets of subsidized everything, and a culture of unrealistic expectations in exchange for political votes will not produce the successful sustainability of a national economy. At some point someone has to pay the price. Voting for a living instead of working for a living won’t work forever. At some place someone has to be allowed to produce something that is real and of value to others. It seems that a better economic model would encourage the expression, investment, and management of the necessary production in a more sustainable way over a measured period of time.

In the over one hundred-fifty countries I have worked in the past thirty years, I have carefully observed examples of the short-lived dictators, the charlatans, and the unashamed and selfish politicos who have stripped nations of their rightful equities and dignities in order to personally enjoy the glitter and bright lights of privilege and control. It’s no wonder that so many people down through the dark ages of history fanned the flame of hope within their own minds and hearts that one day there could be an experiment played out in real life where personal initiative, personal integrity, personal responsibility, personal risk, personal reward, personal management, and personal peace, quiet, and fulfillment could be initiated and encouraged so that everyone in the system could be better off.

Closer to home, the present privileged zip codes in Washington, New York, Boston, and San Francisco of the established administration represent projects and spending behaviors that move way past even political comprehension and way past the truth, half-truth paradigm. How much is a trillion dollars? How much is seventeen trillion dollars? What is the meaning of phrases like “Just too big to fail?” How can you monetize that much debt into the system? How can you even think about applying justice to the government- privileged stalwarts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose untoward actions harmed untold millions of the citizens?

The whole sub-prime rate debacle was designed to redistribute advantage in exchange for votes and support. Then, however, it was taken one ratchet notch higher in form of a counter redistribution of wealth by depositing the ill-gotten proceeds into the accounts of the inhabitants of those privileged zip code areas.

It appears that we have gotten hold of the wrong half of the half-truth paradigm. The Bathtub that once fit nicely in the little adjacent room has expanded until now the whole house, garage, and barn are expected to comfortably nestle into the Bathtub.
 
Next week: Some slippery flaws of the Bathtub.
       (Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics) 
  
© Dr. James W. Jackson  
Permission granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House