Murray Rothbard on outlawing jobs

 

All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labour is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment…

Since the demand curve for any sort of labour (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labour, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect.

The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodic boosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimum wage rates do not and never have caused any unemployment.

The proper riposte is to raise them one better; all right, if the minimum wage is such a wonderful anti-poverty measure, and can have no unemployment-raising effects, why are you such pikers?

Why you are helping the working poor by such piddling amounts? Why stop at $4.55 an hour? Why not $10 an hour? $100? $1,000?…

It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error.

But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "when speaking one’s mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure."

Austrian economics, labour economics and the economics of unemployment

Austrian economists seem not to be as thorough as they could be in applying the concepts of dispersed knowledge, tendency to equilibrium and entrepreneurial appraisal, discovery and learning to the labour market.

In a nutshell, the position of Mises and Rothbard is the problem of unemployment is not jobs being fewer than workers. On some terms, a job is always available in an open market. But a wage and the hours of labour required to earn it can be so unrewarding that a person is rational to decline the job offer and remain unemployed. Of course, they acknowledge institutional unemployment that results from are laws and arrangements which inhibit adjustment of prices of labour services.

Kirzner and Rothbard argue that the market is a process that is always in disequilibrium. Does this disequilibrium not imply some unemployment in the labour market? Why should the tendency toward equilibrium be any stronger in the labour market that elsewhere?  Bill Allen explained search unemployment this way:

…many officially counted as unemployed are heavily and rationally investing their resources in looking for work. They are sampling the market, seeking information on employment alternatives. That information is valuable, but it is not obtained either freely or instantaneously, and generally, the faster it is to be acquired, the more costly it will be…

as output falls [because of a demand or supply shock], there will be some rise in unemployment, for the economy’s adjustment to the new circumstances of supply and prices will not be made instantaneously, without frictions and lags.

Rothbard was well aware of search unemployment:

It might be objected that workers often do not know what job opportunities await them. This, however, applies to the owner of any goods up for sale. The very function of marketing is the acquisition and dissemination of information about the goods or services available for sale.

Except to those writers who posit a fantastic world where everyone has “perfect knowledge” of all relevant data, the marketing function is a vital aspect of the pro­duction structure.

The marketing function can be performed in the labour market, as well as in any other, through agencies or other means for the discovery of who or where the potential buyers and sellers of a particular service may be. In the labour market this has been done through “want ads” in the newspa­pers, employment agencies used by both employer and employee, etc.

Mises also spoke of search unemployment:

Unemployment is a phenomenon of a changing economy. The fact that a worker discharged on account of changes occurring in the arrangement of production processes does not instantly take advantage of every opportunity to get another job but waits for a more propitious opportunity is not a consequence of the tardiness of the adjustment to the change in conditions, but is one of the factors slowing down the pace of this adjustment.

It is not an automatic reaction to the changes which have occurred , independent of the will and the choices of the job-seekers concerned, but the effect of their intentional actions. It is speculative, not frictional

These are good discussions of search unemployment. But when discussing mismatch unemployment as identified by Hayek after a shortening of the produc­tion structure on the market where there might be temporary unemployment of workmen in the higher stages, lasting until the workers can be reabsorbed in the shorter proc­esses of the later stages, Rothbard’s repost to this possible case of involuntary unem­ployment on the free market is:

It is also true that the shortening of the structure means that there is a transition period when, at final wage rates, there will be un­employment of the men displaced from the longer processes. How­ever, during this transition period there is no reason why these workers cannot bid down wage rates until they are low enough to enable the employment of all the workers during the transi­tion. This transition wage rate will be lower than the new equilibrium wage rate. But at no time is there a necessity for unem­ployment.

The labour market is a process just as is any other market: it is a communication network that mobilises dispersed knowledge to overcoming ignorance. Why should knowledge unfold in the labour market process through entrepreneurial discovery any faster than elsewhere? There should be disequilibrium wages, entrepreneurial errors, unemployed and mispriced resources, and a process of entrepreneurial learning and error correction. Hayek held that unemployment is always a pricing problem:

The normal cause of recurrent waves of widespread unemployment is … a discrepancy between the way in which demand is distributed between products and services, and the proportions in which resources are devoted to producing them.

Unemployment is the result of divergent changes in the direction of demand and the techniques of production. If labour is not deployed according to demand for products, there is unemployment…

It is the continuous change of relative market prices and particularly wages which can alone bring about that steady adjustment of the proportions of the different efforts to the distribution of demand, and thus a steady flow of the stream of products.

True, but the correction of erroneous wage rates and the reallocation of labour and other resources to new jobs, new firms and new industries is neither instantaneous nor a free process. Kirzner explains:

The entrepreneurial forces acting on the market for any one commodity are thus continually pushing that market toward the market-clearing point—that is, to where (a) the quantity produced is such that (only) all units “worth producing” are indeed produced, and (b) the market price for this commodity is just high enough to make it, as a practical matter, worthwhile for producers to produce this quantity, and is just low enough to make it worthwhile for consumers to buy it…

The process through which the market tends to generate the “right” quantity of a commodity, and the “right” price for it, can be seen as a series of steps during which market participants gradually tend to discover the gaps or errors in the information on which they had previously been basing their erroneous production and/or buying decisions…

The market process is one in which, driven by the entrepreneurial sense for grasping at pure profit opportunities (and for avoiding entrepreneurial losses), market participants, learning more accurate assessments of the attitudes of other market participants, tend toward the market-clearing price-quantity combination.

Alchian, Demsetz and Barzel were on the mark when they pointed out that too frequently the process of change and reaching a new equilibrium is assumed to be a free good, having no resource costs. Hayek also spoke of the time that is takes to reach a new equilibrium because the new constellation of prices and wages must emerge through the free-play of the market:

The primary cause of the appearance of extensive unemployment, however, is a deviation of the actual structure of prices and wages from its equilibrium structure. Remember, please: that is the crucial concept. The point I want to make is that this equilibrium structure of prices is something which we cannot know beforehand because the only way to discover it is to give the market free play; by definition, therefore, the divergence of actual prices from the equilibrium structure is something that can never be statistically measured.

As Kirzner has well argued, entrepreneurs thrive on alertness to disequilibrium prices and they buy and sell to profit from their discoveries, thereby correcting the mispricing, but this takes time. The knowledge and intentions of the different members of society both across all markets and in the labour market about how to match workers to new jobs must come into agreement through a process of discovery and mutual learning that takes time. Phelps (1969) put forward a fine metaphor for how this process of learning and discovery takes place:

I have found it instructive to picture the economy as a group of islands between which information flows are costly: to learn the wage paid on an adjacent island, the worker must spend the day travelling to that island to sample its wage instead of spending the day at work.

Beveridge has similar views of a multiplicity of markets in 1912:

Why should it be the normal condition of the labour market to have more sellers than buyers, two men to every job and at least as often two jobs for every man? The explanation of the paradox is really a very simple one … that there is no one labour market but only an infinite number of separate labour markets.

Gary Becker drew a parallel between the theory of marriage and the theory of job search and matching. In both cases, it takes time to sort among the options and find a suitable pairing. Some are clearly unacceptable.  Good  matches will often take a long time to find unless people are just plain lucky. Involuntary unemployment is like saying you are involuntarily unmarried. You could marry the first person you meet, if they will have you, but few would say that is wise.

Workers must search for and discover each other. Both are entrepreneurs. The information, knowledge and forecasts of future wages and prices each needs to improve co-ordination of supply and demand will not be discovered immediately:

  • The behavioural responses of employers and workers to change are so pronounced because the cost of acquiring new information is profound (Alchian 1969). Many such costs impede wages from instantly fluctuating to rebalance labour supply with demand.
  • A job seeker does not initially know the location of suitable vacancies, the wages for various skills, differences in job security and other factors. Job seekers must search for this information, keep this knowledge current and forecast whether better vacancies may open soon.
  • Employers must search to learn the location, availability and asking wages of applicants.

The time consumed in labour market search is why Rothbard’s views below that wages just adjust to clear the market has been over taken by developments in economic thinking:

To talk of unemployment or employment without reference to a wage rate is as meaningless as talking of “supply” or “de­mand” without reference to a price. And it is precisely analogous. The demand for a commodity makes sense only with reference to a certain price.

In a market for goods, it is obvious that what­ever stock is offered as supply, it will be “cleared,” i.e., sold, at a price determined by the demand of the consumers…

Whatever supply of labour service is brought to market can be sold, but only if wages are set at what­ever rate will clear the market…

We conclude that there can never be, on the free market, an unemployment problem. If a man wishes to be employed, he will be, provided the wage rate is adjusted according.

Mises in the quote below treated unemployment as a investment in prospecting for a better wage offer very much along the lines of W.H. Hutt:

If a job-seeker cannot obtain the position he prefers, he must look for another kind of job. If he cannot find an employer ready to pay him as much as he would like to earn, he must abate his pretensions. If he refuses, he will not get any job. He remains unemployed.

What causes unemployment is the fact that–contrary to the above-mentioned doctrine of the worker’s inability to wait–those eager to earn wages can and do wait. A job-seeker who does not want to wait will always get a job in the unhampered market economy in which there is always unused capacity of natural resources and very often also unused capacity of produced factors of production. It is only necessary for him either to reduce the amount of pay he is asking for or to alter his occupation or his place of work.

Alchian (1969) lists three ways to adjust to unanticipated demand fluctuations:
• output adjustments;
• wage and price adjustments; and
• Inventories and queues (including reservations).

Alchian (1969) suggests that there is no reason for wage and price changes to be used regardless of the relative cost of these other options:
• The cost of output adjustment stems from the fact that marginal costs rise with output;
• The cost of price adjustment arises because uncertain prices and wages induce costly search by buyers and sellers seeking the best offer; and
• The third method of adjustment has holding and queuing costs.

There is a tendency for unpredicted price and wage changes to induce costly additional search. Long-term contracts including implicit contracts arise to share risks and curb opportunism over sunken investments in relationship-specific capital such as firm-specific human capital and specialised machinery. These factors lead to queues, unemployment, spare capacity, layoffs, shortages, inventories and non-price rationing in conjunction with wage stability. Alchian and Woodward in their 1987 paper ‘Reflections on a theory of the firm’ say that :

… the notion of a quickly equilibrating market price is baffling save in a very few markets. Imagine an employer and an employee. Will they renegotiate price every hour, or with every perceived change in circumstances? If the employee is a waiter in a restaurant, would the waiter’s wage be renegotiated with every new customer? Would it be renegotiated to zero when no customers are present, and then back to a high level that would extract the entire customer value when a queue appears?

… But what is the right interval for renegotiation or change in price? The usual answer ‘as soon as demand or supply changes’ is uninformative.

Alchian and Woodward then go on to a long discussion of the role of protecting composite quasi-rents from dependent resources as the decider of the timing of wage and price revisions. Alchian and Woodward explain unemployment to the side effect of the purpose of wage and price rigidity, which is the prevention of hold-ups over dependent assets. They note that unemployment cannot be understood until an adequate theory of the firm that explains the type of contracts the members of a firm contract with one another.

Walter Oi has also written on slack capacity as being productive and he included references back to W.H. Hutt. Oi’s work on retailing and supermarkets spends a lot of time explaining how an empty store is efficient because the owners are waiting for a mass of customers to arrive at unpredictable time. Oi redeveloped the term the economies of massed reserves to describe this. Oi thought that this was a better term than Hutt’s pseudo-idleness. Oi argued that all resource idleness could, in principle, be eliminated, but to accomplish this, the synchronization of the arrival rates of customers, sales clerks, and just-in-time inventories would be prohibitively expensive.

Benjamin Klein’s theory of rigid wages in American Economic Review in 1984 is one of the few that explored rigid wages as an industrial organisation issue. Klein treated rigid wages as a response to opportunism and hold-up problems over specialised assets and are forms of exclusive dealership or take-or-pay contracts.

The labour market is better understood by forgetting it is the labour market and treating it as a market for long-term contracts for relationship-specific services, firm-specific human capital and mutually dependent assets owned by multiple parties.

Labour is more heterogeneous than capital. The notion that buyers and sellers in the labour market can pair up instantly contradicts the Austrian traditions that markets only tend to equilibrium and entrepreneurs are needed to move things along.

Morgan O. Reynolds makes a good point in his labour economics textbook about how labour markets are different from other markets because there are no speculators and no forward markets in labour to quickly clear the market and allow entrepreneurs to drive the market towards equilibrium through arbitrage as quickly as they do elsewhere.

Contributions of Mises and Rothbard to Economic Thought | Robert P. Murphy – YouTube

Radical Economics: Yo Hayek! A BBC Radio interview with Jamie Whyte on Austrian Economics

Other contributors to this talk are: Prof Steven Horwitz, Prof Larry White, Prof Robert Higgs, Philip Booth, Steve Baker, MP, John Papola, and Lord Robert Skidelsky, and Tim Congdon.

Margaret Thatcher, Hayek & Friedman | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

Thatcher read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom as an undergraduate at Oxford. She took away two key lessons for her life: you cannot compromise with socialism, even the mild social democratic forms; and she saw her own party was doing just that, which put her deeply at odds with its leadership.

After she became Leader of the Opposition, Thatcher cut short a leftish member of her own  Conservative Party Research Department by showing him a copy of The Constitution of Liberty, slamming it down on the table declaring “this is what I believe”.

Thatcher’s relationship with Milton Friedman was different to that of Hayek and not as long standing. Friedman met Thatcher for the first time at a dinner in 1978.

After Thatcher came to office in 1979, Friedman was a critic of the monetary regime of the Thatcher government, questioning her monetary policy targets,  questioning the raising of the value added tax to finance income tax cuts,  and urging deeper spending cuts in the 1979 budget. Friedman was also a strong critic of the monetary policies of the Fed at that time as well, arguing that they lacked credibility, transparency and were very erratic.

In a letter to the Times on 3 March 1980 Friedman stated that he opposed “fine-tuning” and strongly preferred:

a steady monetary and fiscal policy announced long in advance and strictly adhered to

Hayek disagreed with Friedman about the role of gradualism in a letter to the Times on 26 March 1980:

The chief practical issue today is how fast inflation can be and ought to be stopped.

On this, I am afraid, my difference from Friedman makes me take an even more radical position.

The reason is that I believe that the artificial stimulus which inflation gives to business and employment lasts only so long as inflation accelerates, that is, so long as prices turn out to be higher than expected.

Inflation clearly cannot accelerate indefinitely, but as soon as it ceases to accelerate, all the windfalls due to prices turning out higher than expected, which kept unprofitable businesses and employment going, disappear.

Every slowing down of inflation must therefore produce temporary conditions of extensive failures and unemployment.

No inflation has yet been terminated without a “stabilization crisis”.

To advocate that inflation should be slowed down gradually over a period of years is to advocate a long period of protracted misery. No government could stand such a course.

Milton Friedman’s general views on Britain when Thatcher first came to office were clear-cut and were also stated in his letter to the Times on 3 March 1980:

…while monetary restraint is a sufficient condition for controlling inflation, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improving Britain’s productivity – the fundamental requirement for restoring Britain to full economic health.

That requires measures on a broader front to restore and improve incentives, promote productive investment, and give a greater scope for private enterprise and initiative.

Both Hayek and Friedman wrote privately about the Thatcher policies of the early 1980s, decrying them as gradualism. So much for the retired professors as the ring masters of neo-liberalism and Thatcher as their pawn.

Friedman and Hayek disagreed with each other, in important respects, about both gradualism in monetary policy and  macroeconomics in general.

Thatcher did not follow their conflicting policy advice to her. At best, Thatcher was a wayward disciple of squabbling prophets.

Friedman was a strong critic of Austrian macroeconomics and its supposed role in the 1930s policy response or lack of a response to the Great Depression:

I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm.

If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world.

You’ve just got to let it cure itself. You can’t do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse.

I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm.

Hayek was equally critical of the macroeconomics of Milton Friedman and his methodology in general:

I do indeed regard the abandonment of the whole macroeconomics nonsense as very important, but it is for me a very delicate matter and I have for some time avoided stating my views too bluntly and would not have time to state them adequately.

The source of the difficulty is the constant danger that the Mont Pelerin society might split into a Friedmanite and a Hayekian wing.

 I have long regretted my failure to take time to criticise Friedman’s Positive Economics almost as much as my failure to return to the critique of Keynes General Theory after I had dealt with his Treatiese.

It still seems to me paradoxical that Keynes, who was rather contemptuous of econometrics, should have become the main source of the revival of macroeconomics – which incidentally was also the reason why Milton was for a time a Keynesian.

I believe a good and detailed critical analysis of macroeconomics would be very desirable.

Brad Delong pointed out in 2000 that the New Keynesian macroeconomic research program was developed in the 20th century monetarist tradition mostly in the work of Milton Friedman.

Tom Sargent argued in 1981 that Thatcher’s medium term economic strategy was gradualism, and the sustained budget deficits would result in unpleasant monetarist arithmetic:

…In order that the current British plan be viewed as credible it is necessary that the large prospective government deficits over the next several years be counterbalanced by prospective surpluses further down the line.

It is difficult to point to much either in current legislation,  or equally importantly, in the general British political climate that could objectively support such an outlook.

…Gradualism invites speculation about future reversals with U-turns in policy.

Large contemporary government deficits unaccompanied by concrete prospects for future government surpluses promote realistic doubts about whether monetary restraint must be abandoned sooner or later to help finance the deficits.

Such doubts not only call into question the likelihood that the plan can successfully permanently reduce inflation, but also can  induce high real cost in terms of depressed industry and lengthened unemployment in response to what may be viewed as only temporary downward movements in nominal aggregate demand that the monetary restraint induces.

What did Thatcher actually do?

by discrediting socialism so thoroughly, she prompted in due course the adoption by the Labour Party of free market economics, and so, as she wryly confessed in later years, “helped to make it electable”.

The archives of the Margaret Thatcher foundation has released extensive correspondence and other documents about Thatcher, Hayek and Friedman.

via MT, Hayek & Friedman | Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Beyond Efficiency Dr. Israel Kirzner

Entrepreneurship and the Market Process with Israel Kirzner

The Austrian Approach to Competition Israel M. Kirzner

What Have We Learned from the Collapse of Communism? by Peter Boettke

the collapse of Communism has taught political economists several things:

first, that economic policy is always nested within a set of institutions—that there are economic/financial, political/legal, and social/cultural issues, which all must be taken into account;

second, that leadership matters throughout the transition process;

and third, that historical contingency can either work in your favour or cut against the successful transition.

And I would add a fourth one: that political power corrupts even the most informed and idealistic of individuals, such that you cannot count on ideological alignment to win the day. You have instead a small window of opportunity in which ideological alignment can be utilized to establish institutions that make it difficult for even bad men to do much harm.

In other words, the goal of our political/legal institutions should not be to ensure that the best and the brightest can govern, but instead that if the worst get in power, they can do little damage. This is the idea of a “robust political economy”.

Hayek’s spotty record as a prophet in The Road to Serfdom – Part 1

Gordon Tullock used Sweden to support his argument that the basic problem with The Road to Serfdom was:

“that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden did not lead to any loss of non-economic freedoms.”

Hayek discusses the Road to Serfdom

When looking back longingly at the mixed economies of 1950s and 1960s, people often forget who won elections much of the time back then.

The period that managed to combine a large degree of state ownership and control of the UK economy with a free and diverse media and political pluralism was often under Tory rule (1951 to 1964) with the Labor governments (1964-1970) often with a margin of a few seats.

Then there was the Menzies era in Australia with Liberal party rule from 1949 to 1972; and then 1975 to 1983. Much the same in New Zealand. The Left rarely held power in the mid-20th century.

The Christian democrats usually ran both Italy and Germany in coalitions, as I recall, up until the late 1960 or the early 1970s. Gaullist France? The LDP in Japan?

That is where Hayek got it wrong. The left-wing parties were not the face of the future.

Power rotated in Schumpeterian sense. Governments were voted out when they disappointed voters with the replacement not necessarily having very different policies.

The right-wing parties won many western European elections by that well-proven old trick of being slightly to the right of the left-wing parties. Hayek failed to predict this.

Hayek was himself a major critic of detailed predictions:

“We can build up beautiful theories which would explain everything, if we could fit into the blanks of the formulae the specific information; but we never have all the specific information.

Therefore, all we can explain is what I like to call “pattern prediction.”

You can predict what sort of pattern will form itself, but the specific manifestation of it depends on the number of specific data, which you can never completely ascertain. Therefore, in that intermediate field — intermediate between the fields where you can ascertain all the data and the fields where you can substitute probabilities for the data–you are very limited in your predictive capacities.”

“Our capacity of prediction in a scientific sense is very seriously limited. We must put up with this.

We can only understand the principle on which things operate, but these explanations of the principle, as I sometimes call them, do not enable us to make specific predictions on what will happen tomorrow.”

Hayek’s warnings in The Road to Serfdom was against a background where democracy was still young and insecure in Europe and peacetime democratic governments were, up until then, not much bigger than a post office and a military. The big governments of his day were not democratic.

As Popper and Kuhn understood it, bold, risky hypotheses are at the heart of great advances in the sciences and scholarship generally.

Why are there so few workers’ co-ops?

If workers’ cooperatives are so efficient, why are there so few cooperatives? Workers’ cooperatives should be able to slowly undercut other firms on price because they do not have to pay a profit to the capitalists.

Building societies, credit unions and some life insurance companies were mutually owned by their customers for a long time, but recently fell out of favour because of a growing lack of competitiveness and under-capitalisation.

Cooperatives are not economically viable because of intrinsic difficulties of entrepreneurship and management. And most workers prefer to work in firms for a wage rather than wait for the co-op to start up and hopefully break even before they get their first pay cheque. That could be a slow train coming.

The kibbutzim are Israeli agricultural communities initially organized on socialist lines, mostly between the 1910s and 1950s. The kibbutz is an example of voluntary socialism. The founders of kibbutzim were socialist idealists wanting to create a new human being.

Robert Nozick pointed out that few people actually join a kibbutz. Six per cent is the maximum proportion of any population who would voluntarily choose to live in these socialist communities. More recently, 2.6% of the Israeli population live on a kibbutz.

Originally, most kibbutzim followed strict socialist policies forbidding private property; they also required near-total equality of income regardless of differences in productivity, and in some cases, even abandoned the specialisation of labour. Kibbutzim are communities whose aim is equal sharing.

Kibbutzim were expected to fail because of moral hazard and adverse selection. Other organisations subject to adverse selection and moral hazard are professional partnerships, co-operatives, and labour-managed firms because they are all based on revenue sharing.

Kibbutzim have persisted for most of the twentieth century and are one of the largest communal movements in history. About 40% are still run on communist principles. Why is this so?

The kibbutz movement was founded by individuals who can be regarded as ex-ante homogeneous in their ability and potential income, and who came to a new land full of uncertainties. They were young unattached individuals who share a comparatively long period of social, ideological, and vocational training.

An even more durable example of voluntary collectivist living is Catholic monasteries and convents, but notice that these too were founded on a realization that close family ties are inimical to communal order.

Kibbutz founders wanted insurance, but their founders realised that members who would turn out to have high abilities might leave the Kibbutz.

  • The founders of the kibbutzim decided to abolish all private property and to own all wealth commonly, which served as a lock-in device.
  • Like monasteries and convents, kibbutzim deter members from fleeing through this communal ownership of property. You leave with the shirt on your back!

Kibbutzim also put prospective members through lengthy trial periods to make sure they are made of the right stuff. Those raised on a kibbutz tend to have learned kibbutz-specific skills, such as agronomy, which also makes exit to the outside world even more difficult.

Kibbutzim are similar to law firms, medical and business partnerships that pool income for risk sharing purposes.

Mutual monitoring and peer pressure replace direct monetary incentives in mitigating moral hazard in a kibbutz (and in monasteries and convents) in the same way as in professional partnerships, cooperatives, and labour-managed firms with pooled assets and the option of exit.

The trade-off between insurance and adverse selection determines the level of equality within a kibbutz and its size, as with any other professional partnership:

  • Kibbutz vary in size from less than a hundred to over a thousand, but most have between 400 and 600 members, with an average of 441 members.
  • Kibbutz size is limited by the savings on income insurance no longer offsetting the costs of moral hazard and other transaction costs as the Coasian firm grows in size.

Ran Abramitzky writes with great insight on the economics of the kibbutzim. He is writing a book The Mystery of the Kibbutz: How Socialism Succeeded. He found that high-ability individuals are more likely to leave a kibbutz. The brain drain would be worse if kibbutzim didn’t make it so costly to exit. Is this a familiar theme of socialism?

Many hybrid organisations exist in the market, ranging from joint ventures and agricultural seller and supermarket buyer co-ops to labour-owned firms such as in most of the professions.

But rarely do we find real life existing cooperatives with all workers and only workers having equal ownership rights. As Jon Elster noted, there are often non-working owners, non-owning workers and unequal distribution of shares in real life workers’ co-ops. All other types of co-ops and professional partnership share this feature.

An Austrian school economist visits Tacloban

When we landed at Tacloban airport just before New Year’s Day, the devastation from Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda to the locals) was everywhere. Most of the walls of the airport were missing but the supporting beams survived and there was a make-shift roof. We drove for an hour before the damage was no more than lost roofs.Image

At the airport, there were no barriers between the departure area and the tarmac.

Image

A little known use of those lost walls was stopping the jet engines blasting into the waiting lounge. No photo because I was too busy running.

The Tacloban airport is named after an uncle of Imelda Marcos. The city mayor is her nephew; you may have seen him on CNN. Other relatives of Imelda on the island of Leyte have been congressmen, provincial governors or town mayors in a dynasty that rotates between offices because of term limits.

The café next to the airport where I had breakfast when I was last in Tacloban in January 2012 was washed away, sadly along with its owner.

I remember reading the local newspapers in that café in January 2012. A feature story was about the private armies employed by local politicians. These private armies could be 40 strong. Cronyism and a lack of a rule of law could explain why Leyte is among the poorest islands in the Philippines.

All the surrounding restaurants were wiped out. But the food vendors are back at the airport – the entrepreneurial spirit is very resilient! Tacloban airport was one of the few places where I could get diet coke in all of Leyte.

Image

The only upside of the typhoon was Imelda’s large sea-side walled compound was washed away. There is a god: a vengeful god!?

We dropped in on a friend on the way to my parents-in-law. He had lost power. He said that straight after the typhoon, entrepreneurs were going door to door selling bottled water.

By the time we had arrived, everyone on the island of Leyte had received five-weekly rations of five kilos of rice and other essentials from the town hall. My mother-in-law had no need for this ration so she gave it to less well-off neighbours. Her town was not damaged much at all by the typhoon. They are on the other side of the mountain from Tacloban.

My in-laws living on an island further north of Leyte lost their roof and a wall. Terrifying.

Local merchants must find it hard to rebuild their businesses when everyone is getting food for free from the town hall many weeks after the disaster. This includes areas that suffered little damage.

The consular travel warning for all of Leyte was very ‘high risk’ – one below ‘avoid all travel’. Advised to be self-sufficient and be on guard for bandits, etc.

The owners of a very nice 5-room chalet at the other end of Leyte where my sister-in-law and her family stayed were most unimpressed by the over-inclusive consular travel warnings.There were many cancellations so their business was just ticking over rather than in a profit. Little wonder that the girl behind the makeshift car rental desk in the arrivals lounge at Tacloban airport did not seem to get much business when we arrived.

Next Newer Entries

Bassett, Brash & Hide

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Truth on the Market

Scholarly commentary on law, economics, and more

The Undercover Historian

Beatrice Cherrier's blog

Matua Kahurangi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Temple of Sociology

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Why Evolution Is True

Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.

Down to Earth Kiwi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

NoTricksZone

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Homepaddock

A rural perspective with a blue tint by Ele Ludemann

Kiwiblog

DPF's Kiwiblog - Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003

The Dangerous Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

The Logical Place

Tim Harding's writings on rationality, informal logic and skepticism

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

The Risk-Monger

Let's examine hard decisions!

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

Barrie Saunders

Thoughts on public policy and the media

Liberty Scott

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Point of Order

Politics and the economy

James Bowden's Blog

A blog (primarily) on Canadian and Commonwealth political history and institutions

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Peter Winsley

Economics, and such stuff as dreams are made on

A Venerable Puzzle

"The British constitution has always been puzzling, and always will be." --Queen Elizabeth II

The Antiplanner

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Bet On It

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

History of Sorts

WORLD WAR II, MUSIC, HISTORY, HOLOCAUST

Roger Pielke Jr.

Undisciplined scholar, recovering academic

Offsetting Behaviour

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Conversable Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

The Victorian Commons

Researching the House of Commons, 1832-1868

The History of Parliament

Articles and research from the History of Parliament Trust

Books & Boots

Reflections on books and art

Legal History Miscellany

Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice

Sex, Drugs and Economics

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

European Royal History

Exploring the Monarchs of Europe

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Marginal REVOLUTION

Small Steps Toward A Much Better World

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

STOP THESE THINGS

The truth about the great wind power fraud - we're not here to debate the wind industry, we're here to destroy it.

Lindsay Mitchell

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Alt-M

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

croaking cassandra

Economics, public policy, monetary policy, financial regulation, with a New Zealand perspective

The Grumpy Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

International Liberty

Restraining Government in America and Around the World