Patents were invented in Europe, specifically in Monarchical France, and the concept was taken up enthusiastically around the continent. During the eighteenth century, France was way ahead of the UK in the number of patents registered; but by 1800 a clear difference was emerging: while most patents were never to make much money for their owners, some patents - notably British patents - were massively generative of wealth because they were fundamental to the change that was sweeping the United Kingdom into the predominant position in the process that was soon to be called 'the industrial revolution'. Then, into the nineteenth century, the process that led to the unification of Germany ran in parallel with the industrialisation of key areas in that territory; most notably in the Ruhr and Saxony, and around Hamburg and Bremen; and German industrialisation was accompanied by a flurry of patents that included an increasing proportion that were based on methodical research.
The United States developed as a group of former British and French colonies, with a significant proportion of German-speaking settlers helping to drive industrial growth in that vast continent. For a considerable period there was considerable piracy of European intellectual property in the emergent economy of the United States; and eventually the US legislature recognised the good sense of mutual protection of industrially valuable intellectual property [simply because, if the US stole from others, others could steal from them: and thus they could undermine each other]. But, even then, copyright in literature, drama and art seemed less important - especially in the context of US law which was designed to make the acquisition of information and education as cheap as possible - so such property was to be protected mutually much later; hence arose Charles Dickens' famous endeavours to get his new output into the hands of American readers before all the revenue was lost to pirates.
There are pseudo-scientific explanations as to why the UK and Germany, in particular among European states, have been prolific in inventing useful things and processes; but those theories do not explain why the USA has been at least equal to the European leaders in invention and innovation. The Great Exhibition in London in 1851 was meant to show the British people and the rest of the world the range and brilliance of British industrial output, and [to a certain extent] it did: but it also shocked the British visitors to see how sophisticated and clever the French, German and American innovations were. Britain was still primarily an agricultural country in 1851, and most of the urban population had only recently moved into town and still had links to the countryside: so to a huge proportion of the million or so Brits who walked round the Exhibition the most amazing device on display was the McCormick Reaper from the USA. The great plains of the USA were beginning to be prepared to grow crops, and the sort of mechanisation that the reaper represented showed how the American farmers would be able to undercut labour-intensive European suppliers of the principal cereal crops without needing to wait for a mass of immigrant labourers. One of the bizarre side-issues to emerge from the conversations that were driven by the perceived shift in the balance of advantage from Europe to America [and, to a much lesser degree, to Australia] was that Russia remained a peasant economy: the development of that vast empire would have been utterly transformed if the same extensive mechanised farming were to be installed there as in the USA. Russian peasants were still enslaved as serfs in 1851, and the Cossacks roamed free over the future wheatlands. The potential short-cut to massive advancement and wealth was not taken up.
Over the decades since 1851, Britain, Germany and the USA have remained the global leaders in invention and innovation: France and the low countries have been in the league too, but the dominant three have remained in the lead. And now the UK is going through the throes of implementing the decision to leave the protectionism of the European Union; and there is frequent mention of the notion that Britain can 'go it alone' with a hotch-potch of free-trade agreements with other countries: notably China and India, and maybe Brazil, alongside the USA. As the strongly emerging economies develop their industrial capability, they know that the mutual protection of patents will become ever more important. Chinese goods can simply be frozen out of the US and the EU if they are produced in breach of patent: so it is in the interests of the Chinese economy that the state becomes more and more forthright in protecting foreign patents.
On quite different grounds, the major economic blocks can close their markets to specific Chinese exports - or slap punitive tariffs on them - if Chinese exporters try to 'dump' that output in export markets at less than the cost-price of making the equivalent in the receiving country. Raising such barriers is what I have called point protectionism. Big economies, or economic communities, can retaliate against each other if they believe that point protectionism is unfairly being applied against them. This is a powerful tool in the armoury of each major economy. An isolated Britain will not have adequate leverage to apply against the emerging mass economies that might infringe British patents or apply unfair point protectionism against the UK. This is the decisive reason why the crazy Tory Brexiteers must be exposed for what they are, now. The European Union stinks, from the Parliament to the Commission to the Court; the UK must get as far away from those institutions as is feasible; while remaining in the necessary protection of the economic community.
Showing posts with label protectionism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protectionism. Show all posts
Saturday, 22 July 2017
Monday, 28 November 2011
Market Failure and Democratic Deficit
Adam Smith has been identified as the 'father' or the 'founder' of Political Economy [and of its more modern aberration, Economics] since soon after he produced his most famous book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which was published in 1776 - the year of some British American Colonies' Declaration of Independence. It was - and it remains - a campaigning book. He opposed the 'Political Economy' that prevailed at the time [as recently systematised by a fellow Scot, Sir James Steuart], which assumed that the government had a duty to support, control and regulate the economy. This well-established doctrine followed the political philosophy that had been set out in the previous century by Thomas Hobbes, who had argued that when there was no political system the life to which primitive men and women were condemned was 'nasty, brutish and short'. Unless there was a power that could compel all humans to behave according to common rules there could be no security for people's bodies and no guarantee that any preservable asset that anybody created would be safe in their possession: so neither civilised relationships nor the economy could develop.Hobbes assumed that at some time enough people would have recognised the gap between human creative abilities and the life that people lived while they remained in a 'state of war' with each other. So they had elected a Sovereign: to whom they gave the right to 'make war' against everybody else whenever violence may be necessary to establish and preserve the rule of law and order.
Adam Smith did not dispute the need for a government and he explicitly recognised that some non-military public works such as coastal defences could only practicably be afforded by the state; and he became a Commissioner of Customs. But his core argument about the creation of material assets [and of the intellectual capital that supported the creative process] was that state interference and the government's protection of interest groups - such as closed trades and merchants who were granted monopolies - usually restricted economic growth and the beneficial spread of wealth among the community at large. Karl Marx was to build on that proposition, which he extended into an assertion that monopoly capitalism would so develop that it would become a system of total oppression of the proletarian majority of the population.His Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, brought global attention to the ideas that he spent the next few decades elaborating.
After the publication of Smith's book formal Political Economy accommodated the 'Principle' that Free Trade should be supported by governments, in preference to monopoly, whenever feasible. But the professors stressed that governments, businessmen and commentators on the economy should always recognise Malthus' Principle of Population and the two Laws of their science: the Law of Diminishing Returns and The Iron Law of Wages [for definitions see blogs passim or my Personal Political Economy]. When these laws were combined with Marx's predictions the resulting scenario was alarming: productive technologies would inescapably reach an entropic inevitability as output-per-input of additional capital declined. If the Law of Wages was maintained, so that the government insisted that the total economy must always remain in balance [and could not indulge in net borrowing], and the capitalists were demanding ever more of the national output to put into additional equipment that was achieving only diminishing returns, the increasing population would face declining living standards - reaching starvation-point - and the crisis of capitalism would explode into revolution.
This prospect scared the professors of Political Economy, so by the middle eighteen-sixties advanced thinkers in several countries started presenting a new approach that treated Marx in the same way as Adam Smith recorded he dealt with Steuart: they tried to demolish Marx's intellectual system "without once mentioning him". Their alternative involved shelving the Iron Law of Wages, pushing the operation of the Law of Diminishing Returns into the indefinite future, asserting that Malthus' Principle was unproven [and may be invalid]; instead emphasising Smith's proposition that competitive free trade optimised economic growth: this led to a theory of market Economics. Until the nineteen thirties that form of Economics became increasingly prevalent in the universities, worldwide: then in the depression protectionism - interventions by governments to protect their economies, at the expense of firms and individuals in other countries - became significant. It was ruinous for everybody because it just made the depression more intense as world trade slumped further. In these circumstances Keynes's timely publication of his propositions for macro-economic intervention by the state became popular, and was adopted by democratic governments during the second world war as one of the promised methodologies by which a better world would be built on the fruits of victory.
The crass adaptation of Keynes's principles after his death led through increased indebtedness to the nineteen seventies that were characterised by inflation, the risk of collapsing currencies and the possibility of hyperinflation. Keynes had attacked the behaviour of people in the stock and bond markets, and in banks: he referred to them making decisions on a basis of 'animal spirits' rather than of reason, which led to irrational herd behaviour triggered by 'waves of irrational psychology'. People who were supposedly developing and implementing his ideas could not ignore those assertions, so alongside macroeconomic intervention it was dogma between 1940 and 1970 that markets [and especially financial markets] must be controlled. Once Bowdlerised Keynesianism had been proven not to be the panacea for perpetual prosperity, an alternative set of ideas was adopted. At rock bottom, behind obfuscatory argument and seductive mathematical models, the new core proposition was that [though people in markets were, indeed, prone to irrationality] markets themselves were rational entities. Instead of being seen as dangerously constructed creations that were likely to be abused, to the disadvantage of outsiders and of the economy at large, rational markets were presented as intrinsically beneficial. Therefore all restraints on markets would serve as limitations on the optimisation of wealth.
This was the leitmotiv of the Reagan-Thatcher era, which briefly seemed to offer perpetual prosperity. But reckless market behaviour far worse than Keynes had condemned was unseen by the majority of Economists and commentators, who were beguiled by the figures that governments chose to collect and publicised. The Clinton-Blair-Brown-Chirac period seemed prosperous: but alongside de-industrialisation there were massive and unsustainable increases in personal and public indebtedness, uncontrolled and incomprehensible developments of money-markets in cyberspace, an appalling expansion of international trade in sex slaves and indigenous exploitation of child prostitutes, the unrestricted growth of a vicious drugs trade; and - largely funded by those outrageous activities - the gap between the incomes of rich and poor became more significant than that between peasants and feudal aristocrats.
That was the final, abject and total failure of academic Economics: and over the four years since it became obvious I have not noticed any press reports of ritual suicides, formal statements of regret or self-conscious resignations from professorial chairs. It is a well-used adage that con-men can only succeed if they con themselves first: and by extension the professors could be those who were so deluded by their studies that they have not yet seen the scope of the disaster that they have collectively produced. After all, they are the girls and boys who faithfully learned what their professors taught them; and got their promotion by peer-reviewing each others' fantasising within an intellectual bubble that has not yet been burst by reality. If that is a fair assessment, the professors are to be pitied: but their time has come!
And the politicians just followed them. They swallowed Rational Market theory hook, line and sinker: though it is unlikely that many of them ever really understood it. By adopting an appallingly limited and profoundly defective version of Economics they ensured that whatever was delivered would not be beneficial to the people at large. Thus they engineered a simultaneous failure of Economics and Politics. The public justification for both Politics and Economics is that they should serve the common good. In the 'democratic west', they have not done so.
Adam Smith did not dispute the need for a government and he explicitly recognised that some non-military public works such as coastal defences could only practicably be afforded by the state; and he became a Commissioner of Customs. But his core argument about the creation of material assets [and of the intellectual capital that supported the creative process] was that state interference and the government's protection of interest groups - such as closed trades and merchants who were granted monopolies - usually restricted economic growth and the beneficial spread of wealth among the community at large. Karl Marx was to build on that proposition, which he extended into an assertion that monopoly capitalism would so develop that it would become a system of total oppression of the proletarian majority of the population.His Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, brought global attention to the ideas that he spent the next few decades elaborating.
After the publication of Smith's book formal Political Economy accommodated the 'Principle' that Free Trade should be supported by governments, in preference to monopoly, whenever feasible. But the professors stressed that governments, businessmen and commentators on the economy should always recognise Malthus' Principle of Population and the two Laws of their science: the Law of Diminishing Returns and The Iron Law of Wages [for definitions see blogs passim or my Personal Political Economy]. When these laws were combined with Marx's predictions the resulting scenario was alarming: productive technologies would inescapably reach an entropic inevitability as output-per-input of additional capital declined. If the Law of Wages was maintained, so that the government insisted that the total economy must always remain in balance [and could not indulge in net borrowing], and the capitalists were demanding ever more of the national output to put into additional equipment that was achieving only diminishing returns, the increasing population would face declining living standards - reaching starvation-point - and the crisis of capitalism would explode into revolution.
This prospect scared the professors of Political Economy, so by the middle eighteen-sixties advanced thinkers in several countries started presenting a new approach that treated Marx in the same way as Adam Smith recorded he dealt with Steuart: they tried to demolish Marx's intellectual system "without once mentioning him". Their alternative involved shelving the Iron Law of Wages, pushing the operation of the Law of Diminishing Returns into the indefinite future, asserting that Malthus' Principle was unproven [and may be invalid]; instead emphasising Smith's proposition that competitive free trade optimised economic growth: this led to a theory of market Economics. Until the nineteen thirties that form of Economics became increasingly prevalent in the universities, worldwide: then in the depression protectionism - interventions by governments to protect their economies, at the expense of firms and individuals in other countries - became significant. It was ruinous for everybody because it just made the depression more intense as world trade slumped further. In these circumstances Keynes's timely publication of his propositions for macro-economic intervention by the state became popular, and was adopted by democratic governments during the second world war as one of the promised methodologies by which a better world would be built on the fruits of victory.
The crass adaptation of Keynes's principles after his death led through increased indebtedness to the nineteen seventies that were characterised by inflation, the risk of collapsing currencies and the possibility of hyperinflation. Keynes had attacked the behaviour of people in the stock and bond markets, and in banks: he referred to them making decisions on a basis of 'animal spirits' rather than of reason, which led to irrational herd behaviour triggered by 'waves of irrational psychology'. People who were supposedly developing and implementing his ideas could not ignore those assertions, so alongside macroeconomic intervention it was dogma between 1940 and 1970 that markets [and especially financial markets] must be controlled. Once Bowdlerised Keynesianism had been proven not to be the panacea for perpetual prosperity, an alternative set of ideas was adopted. At rock bottom, behind obfuscatory argument and seductive mathematical models, the new core proposition was that [though people in markets were, indeed, prone to irrationality] markets themselves were rational entities. Instead of being seen as dangerously constructed creations that were likely to be abused, to the disadvantage of outsiders and of the economy at large, rational markets were presented as intrinsically beneficial. Therefore all restraints on markets would serve as limitations on the optimisation of wealth.
This was the leitmotiv of the Reagan-Thatcher era, which briefly seemed to offer perpetual prosperity. But reckless market behaviour far worse than Keynes had condemned was unseen by the majority of Economists and commentators, who were beguiled by the figures that governments chose to collect and publicised. The Clinton-Blair-Brown-Chirac period seemed prosperous: but alongside de-industrialisation there were massive and unsustainable increases in personal and public indebtedness, uncontrolled and incomprehensible developments of money-markets in cyberspace, an appalling expansion of international trade in sex slaves and indigenous exploitation of child prostitutes, the unrestricted growth of a vicious drugs trade; and - largely funded by those outrageous activities - the gap between the incomes of rich and poor became more significant than that between peasants and feudal aristocrats.
That was the final, abject and total failure of academic Economics: and over the four years since it became obvious I have not noticed any press reports of ritual suicides, formal statements of regret or self-conscious resignations from professorial chairs. It is a well-used adage that con-men can only succeed if they con themselves first: and by extension the professors could be those who were so deluded by their studies that they have not yet seen the scope of the disaster that they have collectively produced. After all, they are the girls and boys who faithfully learned what their professors taught them; and got their promotion by peer-reviewing each others' fantasising within an intellectual bubble that has not yet been burst by reality. If that is a fair assessment, the professors are to be pitied: but their time has come!
And the politicians just followed them. They swallowed Rational Market theory hook, line and sinker: though it is unlikely that many of them ever really understood it. By adopting an appallingly limited and profoundly defective version of Economics they ensured that whatever was delivered would not be beneficial to the people at large. Thus they engineered a simultaneous failure of Economics and Politics. The public justification for both Politics and Economics is that they should serve the common good. In the 'democratic west', they have not done so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)