John McCone : Philosophy For The Future

Philosophy For The Future

Finance

A Rights-Based Basic Income

by

howcolour/Shutterstock.com

When the topic of basic income arises, people often ask me: “Why should we pay people to do nothing?” We generally think that hard word generates income, and that workers rightfully own that income. The idea of taxing hardworking people to pay those who (might) do nothing seems unjust. Should workers slave for money that mostly gets confiscated and given to others?

Yet not all income is paid to labour. A portion of income is used to rent assets of value. An owner of valuable assets can receive rent from others who wish to use them. This will provide him with an income for little to no work – possibly indefinitely. Some of the value of rentable assets was produced by labour, however a portion, perhaps a third to a half, was not.

I propose (as Henry George once did) that only the value created by labour can rightfully be privately owned. The only assets of value that can rightfully be purchased are assets created by labour, and if labour is only responsible for a portion of an asset’s value, then only that portion which labour produced should be owned privately.

There is no reason why one person should have a greater claim than another to value that is not produced by labour and, therefore, the rental income proceeding from the use of all natural value, by right, should be distributed evenly throughout society. The only way to own something is to produce it or purchase it from the rightful owner. This requires a voluntary exchange of ownership extending back to the original producers of the item of value. The purchaser of private ownership rights to natural value is like a buyer of stolen bicycles – as all private entitlements to natural value were originally stolen from the commons.

This article explores the revenues that a basic income based on equal rights, could generate. An income based on the principle that all people have:

  • An equal right to the unimproved value of land
  • An equal right to newly printed money
  • An equal right to inheritance
  • An equal right to benefit from bads whose quantity must be limited

 

The Portion of Land Value Not Produced By The Owner

 

Anything for which the demand at zero price exceeds the supply has monetary value. For some of these scarce, yet desirable, items (such as a piece of jewellery) the source of value  was the labour of a craftsman, in which case the value rightfully belongs to its creator. Yet in other cases, at least a portion of the value is naturally occurring (a lakeside view, for example). Usually, human labour must mix with natural value to produce the final item. However, some natural resources require less effort to extract value from than others. Consider two coal resources: one far below the surface branching into narrow seams, another deposited on the surface, extractable with open cast mining. The value of coal from both mines is equal, yet one requires far more labour to extract than the other. This will make the mineral rights of the easily mineable deposit more expensive than the rights for the deposit that requires more capital and labour to extract coal from. But when one mining company out bids the others and pays the higher sum for the right to mine these easily accessible deposits, to whom should the money be paid? Who was responsible for that coal deposit being closer to the surface? Who deserves to be paid for this service? No one! It is simply a fluke of nature. And if no one deserves the cash proceeds from selling the rights to this resource, then everyone is equally entitled to these proceeds.

Beyond that, there is value that arises from proximity to other people. It is valuable to live close to shops, restaurants, discos and workplaces from which to earn a living. Yet the land owner creates only a tiny portion of this value. If most people on a street paints their house, the location value of the street will rise even for those who don’t. If a shop or railway station opens up, nearby house prices will go up even if their inhabitants did not build the railway or work in the shop.

We can thus see that, while much of a location’s value does arise from human activity, the rental proceeds from location value are not paid to the creators of that value. Since it is impossible to identify who is responsible for each pound of increased location value, it is better to tax the rental value of location and distribute a per head payment to everyone.

How do we assess what portion of land value arises from its unimproved location value and what portion arises from improvements which the owner has made? The value of the improvements is the cost of producing the improvements. If a house in London costs £150,000 to build and sells for £750,000, then it’s unimproved land value is £600,000. The cash value of the yearly benefit that proceeds from the exclusive use of a location is the location rent (the site rent). The appropriate level to set land value tax (a sum payable to the government for the exclusive use of a location) in a neighbourhood, is therefore whatever level reduces the prices of houses traded in an area to the cost of producing all the improvements present at that location. Mark Wadsworth estimates that a tax on the full site rent of residential property in the U.K. would bring in around £200 billion. Existing business rates offer a conservative ballpark estimate for what a tax on the unimproved value of commercial land could raise – around £30 billion.

Natural resources and farm land would not significantly change these figures.

So an equal right to the rental proceeds arising from the unimproved value of land in the U.K. would split £230 billion per year among 50 million adults and yield a yearly basic income of £4,600 per person.

 

An Equal Right to Newly-Printed Money

 

Any civilization that permits usury must continually create new money to remain stable. The current way that central and private banks create and distribute new money is highly unjust. So who should receive the newly printed money? Newly created money is not produced by labour, we certainly don’t reward private individuals who labour to create money! Forgery, the production of money by private individuals, is a criminal offence. Money is an – albeit useful – artificial monopoly imposed by legal fiat. Because it is produced by legal fiat, rather than labour, all people have an equal claim to the value of newly printed money. In a previous article, I discussed the precise financial policy reforms required to stabilize our system. Suffice to say they involve paying £1,840 to every adult, every year.

 

An Equal Right To Inheritance

 

Imagine a think-tank asked you to summit a design proposal for an equitable welfare system that addresses poverty to a report they were writing. Imagine you proposed a system where the welfare each recipient received was proportional to the net worth of their parents at their time of death. The response of the editor would probably be: “That’s the dumbest, most arbitrary, welfare system I’ve ever heard! Come back when you have something better!”

Inheritance is welfare. It’s unearned wealth some people receive in exchange for no work.

Some people accumulate a great deal of wealth over the course of their lives, which doesn’t go away when they die. So what to do with that value? Since no living person produced it, no living person has earned it. As such, everyone should have an equal claim to the wealth left behind by the dead.

So how much money would an equal right to inheritance bring in?

Let’s neglect land (whose value would already be taxed away) and just include financial assets. The HMRC estimates the total value of financial assets in the UK to be £1.6 trillion. If we take the gap between generations to be 33 years, as Richard Murphy does, this would yield a yearly revenue of £53 billion to be redistributed. Let’s assume, for the sake of being conservative that half of this is avoided or evaded. This would leave ~£25 billion a year, or £500 per person per year.

 

An Equal Right To Bads Whose Production Is Restricted

 

It is impossible to quantify with any accuracy, how much income this would bring in as the extent to which bads are restricted, and how they are restricted, is a political one. A slight modification of David Fleming’s proposal of Tradeable Energy Quotas ( TEQs ) would distribute rights, to purchase CO2 emitting fossil fuels, equally throughout the population. Every time you buy coal in the shop, you would have to surrender a portion of your quota. Companies would not be issued with any carbon ration but would have to purchase it from private individuals who could sell their carbon rations on the market to companies instead of burning it.

An alternative would be to charge a fixed price per unit bad emitted. There is a case for spending this price on clean-up costs rather than giving it to the population in general.

Beyond that, companies must often be approved for a license to engage in potentially harmful activity. The quantity of this activity could be reduced by increasing the cost of the license (whether selling liquor or gambling). The money raised should be distributed evenly throughout the population.

Conservatively, I will add £500 per person per year as the proceeds of the redistribution of fees, duties, rations, licenses, etc., etc.

 

Getting Real About Basic Income

 

Adding it all together, a rights-based basic income, which makes no claim on the proceeds of other people’s productive labour, would amount to about £7,440 per person. That this is far below the average wage should not be surprising for, as Piketty has mentioned, capital accounts for 30% of income (and some of that capital is justly earned), while wages account for 70% of income.

We need to be realistic about basic income. The purpose of basic income is not to enable people to live comfortably without working, rather it is to enable people to live without working in the labour market. If instead of using basic income as something to buy meals and pay rent, you think of it as money that enables you to purchase building materials, gardening and maintenance tools, and fertilizer to which you apply your labour to set up and run a homestead, then an unconditional payment of £7,440 a year could go a long way to enabling a sufficiently industrious person to establish quite a high quality of life for himself without selling his labour to others.

And since no customers or employers are required to give people permission to provide for their own needs, anyone could access this lifestyle. While not everyone would choose it, a universally accessible option of self-provision would greatly strengthen the negotiating position of workers with their employers and increase both wages and employment.

So a modest basic income could go a long way.

My article Basic Income, Self-Provision and Full Employment discussed the higher credit value of basic income as well as it effect on wages and employment in greater detail.

 

John

 

Do You Have a Burning Desire To Make a Comment?

 

Have you found this article thought provoking? Is there some message you desperately want to communicate to future readers but can’t because my comment section automatically closes 28 days after my posts go live?

If so, you might be interested to know that I reopen any comments section to members of my mailing on request as one of the perks of joining.

If you’d like to leave a comment, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, sign on to my mailing list and them email me with a request to reopen the comments section for this post.

Happy Commenting!

John

Let’s Stabilize The Business Cycle – Once And For All!

by

Victor Moussa/Shutterstock.com

Any civilization that permits usury must continually create new money to remain stable.   Since the industrial revolution, loans at interest have become an indispensable means of financing important infrastructure to greatly improve living standards. Yet there is a price pay for this practice: the economic busts that have plagued the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries are the bitter fruits of usury.

It is not a coincidence that the Bank of England, founded in 1694, arose before the industrial revolution got into full swing. Without it, economic busts would have destroyed finance and torn apart the embryonic industrial economy. Central banks enable our financial system to survive economic busts – devastating though they are. Ever since their founding, central banks have covertly created new money out of thin air and lent it to banks; sometimes a nominal store of gold (of far less value than the money issued) “backs it up”, other times money is simply created by legal fiat.

As time has gone by, central banks have been getting better at using newly printed money to stabilize the finance system. The 2008 recession was pretty bad, but it was nothing like the  1930’s. However, the policies which central banks currently deploy to stabilize finance are causing inequality to skyrocket.

Central banks don’t give out newly printed money. They lend it. All money was originally loaned into existence. If all loans were paid back, all money would disappear. To stop this, central and private banks constantly lend out new money so new loans can be used to repay old loans. Thus, the total amount of money loaned out exponentially increases, yet if this exponential is sufficiently gentle, it can, in principle, sustain a steady, moderate rate of inflation indefinitely.

Since the loaned out money can never be repaid without societal collapse, the exponential increase in loans, that the central bank supports, is really just a money printing operation.

 

Fiscal Policy and Skyrocketing Inequality

 

So who gets all this newly printed money?

The answer: People who can raise credit at low interest rates. The activity of continually printing new money inflates asset prices. If you can raise a loan with newly printed money at an interest rate below inflation and use it to purchase assets, then the value of your asset portfolio, purchased from money loaned to you out of thin air, will almost certainly go up – at least with inflation  – leading to yearly capital gains that exceed the interest originally used to buy that capital.

Such people, using low interest loans to make capital gains, essentially receive newly printed money for free.

This effect is exponential: as the assets purchased with new loans appreciate at the inflation rate, our investor’s net worth will increase yearly roughly by the inflation rate minus any interest owed on his loans. This increase in net worth can serve as leverage for yet more loans which can purchase yet more assets whose value in turn appreciates.

The problem is that not everyone can access credit at interest rates below inflation. People who already have valuable assets can leverage up at very low interest (some brokerages charge less than 1% interest on money loaned out to buy stocks) but people with insecure jobs and no assets, cannot get 1% interest and usually pay over 10% on their loans.

This interest rate apartheid, between people whose net worth is positive and those whose net worth is negative, divides the population into 2 distinct groups: Those in the black who – if they are financially savvy – receive free newly printed money from central and private banks and those in the red (and less savvy ones in the black) who get no newly printed money.

The current policy of the world’s central banks is effectively to continually print new money and hand it out to rich people for free (through facilitating leverage to inflate financial assets). Theoretically this can put off another sudden, disastrous crash for quite some time (which is why, despite many cries of wolf, there has been no “next great recession”) – although a change in fiscal policy (such as Ending The Fed or raising interest rates) could cause a sudden catastrophic collapse. However, this strategy can only stave off collapse by continually increasing the relative share of the world that the wealthy own. So although central banks can stave off the next crash by handing free money out to rich people (assuming no revolution), since the super rich cannot own more than 100% of the world’s total wealth, this policy cannot continue forever.

Yet if we don’t continually release new money into the system – it will collapse!

 

Stabilizing Finance Without Increasing Inequality

 

The question is…if we are going to print money out of thin air, which we have to unless we intend to ban usury (and it’s a little late in the game to ban usury!)…who should we give this new money to?

The answer is simple: since no one has earned the newly printed money, everyone has an equal claim to it. Newly printed money should be divided evenly among the population.

How much money should be printed every year?

If we look at the formula for price:

MV = PT

Where

M = Money supply

V = Money Velocity

P = Price

and

T is the number of goods transacted

Then making P the subject of the formula yields:

P=(M/T)V

If we assume a real economic growth rate of 2%, a constant money velocity and an inflation target of 2%, then that would imply that the money supply should be increased by 4% per year. Taking the UK’s M2 money supply of 2.3 trillion as M would imply that, in order to achieve a target inflation rate of 2%, £92 billion pounds of new money should be distributed evenly throughout the population per year, which would give each U.K. adult  £1,840 of newly printed money per year.

This is only a ballpark figure, and may be an overestimate, since the velocity of money in the hands of poorer people is faster than its velocity in the hands of the super rich, so the payment might be somewhat less. Furthermore, it would oscillate to correct for changes in the money velocity.

But the important point is that such a payment of newly printed money to everyone could simultaneously stabilize our financial system and prevent the super-rich from acquiring an ever larger share of the world’s wealth.

 

Growth and Inflation

 

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.com

You may have noticed that the amount of new money required to stabilize the system  roughly equals the inflation target plus real economic growth.

Economists often say we need real economic growth to stop systemic collapse. This is not true. Nominal economic growth plus steady inflation, arising from new money, is adequate to stabilize the system. What is true is that real economic growth allows central banks to pass free money under the table to rich people without anyone else noticing. Our financial system is rigged to ensure the rich get the lion’s share of all newly created wealth but, since everyone ends up with more, no one complains too much.

Distributing an appropriate amount of newly-printed money to everyone would let capitalism exist in steady-state with modest inflation. Don’t believe anyone who says otherwise. It’s just the rich couldn’t get richer without genuine innovation that outperforms the market.

 

National Central Banks Should Hold All Deposits

 

At the moment, private banks create most (97%) new money. This must stop if central banks are to hand everyone new money. Otherwise the fractional reserve system would multiply the new money – perhaps 30 fold – and cause hyperinflation.

Stopping this is relatively straightforward. All that is needed is for central banks to hold all deposits. The national central bank would then manage all ATM machines and give everyone a central bank debit card for cash transactions. In other words, the central bank would provide personal banking services to everyone. Since the central bank can, in principle, print an infinite amount of currency out of thin air, there would be no fear of runs on the bank as it could always print enough cash to pay depositors.

The central bank would then loan money to private banks at low interest who would then loan the money out to people and firms at a higher interest rate – the spread in interest being the private banks’ source of profit.

In our current system, when private banks lend out money, they credit the money to a deposit account held in the same private bank which can then be used as collateral for yet more loans, leading to uncontrolled money creation.

In the system I propose, when private banks lend money out to customers, they credit the customers’ central bank deposits. This enables the central bank to tightly control the amount of new money and credit created. And every personal account held by the central bank would, from time to time, be credited with basic income that roughly annualizes to £1,840 – more if the economy grew faster than 2% per annum.

Financial crises happen when too many borrowers fail to pay back their loans and cause depositors to lose their money. If these depositors either have loans themselves, or pay wages to people with loans, then this loss of deposits causes more debt defaults which wipe out yet more deposits…and on…and on… and on, in a disastrous cascade.

Securely protecting deposits could make financial contagion and crises a thing of the past. And if the central bank held all deposits, they would be fully protected, as any entity that can infinitely print money can pay all depositors in cash – even simultaneously. Thus, if the central bank held all deposits, there would be no more financial crises.

If the central bank held all deposits, no private bank would be too big to fail. There would be no difference between a large bank and large car company going bust.

A central bank holding all deposits is consistent with the libertarian ideal of the nightwatchmen state that solely protects private property. After all, your deposit account is your property, so should the state not protect it from irresponsible lending institutions?

It would be fairly simple to transition to this system without an economic collapse. The central bank could offer depositors convenient personal banking services along with a central bank debit card (an perhaps a sign up bonus). Then, whenever someone transfers a deposit out of a private bank and into the central bank, the central bank would lend the private bank a sum exactly equal to the deposit that was transferred out. This way, the central bank could transition to holding all private deposits without drying up the supply of loans.

Simple!

The recent announcement by the Chinese central bank that they will launch a digital currency may be the first step to a future where individuals and businesses can access the affordability and convenience of a current account without running the risk that the private bank holding the account might go bankrupt. If China can properly implement such a system, it will make its economy completely immune to recession. If the rest of the world’s central banks fail to catch up, digitize their currencies and recession-proof their economies, then, in the wake of the next recession, we may all end up using Chinese digital Yuan.

 

A Land-Backed Currency

 

Without gold, what is the real basis of a currency’s value? A currency backed by genuine value inspires more confidence than one whose value floats on thin air and good will, yet backing up a currency with real value is a straightforward matter and can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen.

A tax on the site rent of all the nation’s land, payable only in national currency would – at the stroke of a pen – create a land-backed currency. Such a land value tax would effectively use the total asset value of the nation’s territory to back its currency.

Since:

  • Total global land value far exceeds total global gold value
  • Land cannot be covertly stolen
  • Land is the natural asset of every nation
  • Land is of far greater use than gold

It is far more sensible back up a currency’s value with land rather than gold.

By adopting all of these measures, we can end the devastation that financial instability causes once and for all and transition to a stable, secure and prosperous future!

 

John

 

Do You Have a Burning Desire to Make a Comment?

 

Have you found this article thought provoking? Is there some message you desperately want to communicate to future readers but can’t because my comment section automatically closes 28 days after my posts go live?

If so, you might be interested to know that I reopen any comments section to members of my mailing on request as one of the perks of joining.

If you’d like to leave a comment, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, sign on to my mailing list and them email me with a request to reopen the comments section for this post.

Happy Commenting!

John