We, by nature are not equal, we are not similar, we, each of us individuals, represents a distinct personality. We not only differ in shapes, sizes, looks and other physical aspects, we also differ in the abilities. Not everyone is equally talented, ambitious, hardworking or prudent and so on. Obviously, the more intelligent and prudent person with higher ambitions, better talent “if is free” to work as hard, honest and devotedly as he can, will surely gain more success in producing, earning and accumulating more wealth than a person with lesser intelligence, ambition and will to do honest hard work.

Egalitarianism against Causality

Causality is the very base of success or failure thus, in a free society; economic equality emerges as the outcome of different individuals performing different degrees of economic causation. Opposition and abolition of economic inequality thus, is obviously against all connections between an individual’s hard work and the result of his efforts, it is abolition of causality in incurring of income by the individual.¹
In a group of ten people determined to share equally all the income earned by them if one of the person works harder or innovates a way to increase total earning by X amount, his increase in personal earning will merely be 1-tenth of X. If the group consists of 100 people, his increase will be 1-hundreth of X, and if the group is as big as 1 billion, his total increase in earning will be 1 billionth of X. Obviously, it would be such an insignificant amount that he would never get any incentive of all his hard work. It is also to be noted that in such egalitarian society, no significant connection can exist between what an individual produce and what he or any other particular individual receives. That is, even though the total amount of group would be increased by X amount, the overall increase in each individual’s income would be insignificant. Thus, egalitarianism destroys ability of many individuals to achieve progress and development that are of any significance to anyone.

Egalitarianism against Progress

Any compulsion on an individual to improve his own family’s life only insofar as he improves the life and standard of everyone else in the society or country make all of the society or country impoverished. Egalitarianism would certainly provide incentives to not to do any work or improvement as after doing all hard work, an individual will get a meagre increase of 1 billionth in his personal income, if he won’t do any work, his meagre reduction in personal income would be 1 billionth, again an insignificant figure. Thus, increasing one’s production would not be of any significant benefit for anyone and decreasing the work would not be of any significant loss to anyone. Hence, everyone would have an incentive to do nothing.
Equality of income obviously is against freedom² as it is “forced labour” because it eliminates the earning of increment in income as an incentive. If people are to work without the incentives of profits, the only way to make them work is using force. Other than income or profits, there are positive incentives for work, such as the enjoyment of the work itself. Yet, as a matter of fact, most of the jobs are such where the incentive of enjoyment of doing work is closely related with the incentive of income. No one makes bricks, sweeps streets, clears drainage system, makes shoes, mines coal or even work as a CEO of a company for the enjoyment of work without considering the significance of income. Even in artistic works like painting, singing or writing, the pleasure of doing work only would not be sufficient to induce amount and quality of work that can be induced in free-society providing income incentives for doing work.

Egalitarianism against Innovations and entrepreneurship

There can be exceptional cases of individuals able to achieve significant results in the improvement of whole society. A great scientist, innovator or businessperson can increase the production and incur the development so greatly that whole country, in fact whole world can perceive the benefits of his success. Yet, such exceptions do not provide any possibility for the practicability of egalitarianism. The scientist achieves the intellectual satisfaction of making his discoveries and that is the highest achievement for him, but inventors do require the prospects of sufficient material gains in absence of which, they will not devote the time and effort and would not go through the expenses necessary for making an invention, discovery or innovation possible. Often entrepreneurs actually implement the works of scientists and innovators to actually cause the benefit of masses. Businessmen invokes scientists and inventors to work and invent by investing in the research works and promising incentives, they search out and perfect the inventions.
Entrepreneurs will not be investing in any research if there will not be incentives to make a fortune on behalf of their work and investment, furthermore, if the businesspersons were not allowed to accumulate wealth, they would hardly be able to invest anything for researches, development and inventions. Thus, the basic of great minds actually being able to work and produce any significant amount of development in common persons life is very much dependent on the presence of economic inequality, in absence of which, that is in an egalitarian society, the innovations and inventions would be extremely difficult or rare.

Egalitarianism resulting in Forced Economic Inequality

Often as the failure of bringing egalitarian ideal in practice, socialist regimes results in bringing forced economic inequalities within the society, which is obviously inimical to progress and economic production. Such inequalities results in because of governmental actions such as taxation, subsidies, licensing system, special privileges, quotas and reservations etc. Government’s establishment of such inequalities results in depriving the producers of a significant part of their incentives to work and produce, furthermore, actions like quotas, reservations and licensing system obviously violates the freedom of individuals to produce, hence reduces the production significantly bringing in poverty and chaos. Other governmental acts like corporate taxes etc. appropriates the income of producers and thereby decreases their capacity to invest in production and developments. Such arbitrary economic inequality produced thus deprives the producers of possibility to produce anything by means of monopolistic restrictions against their entry in various streams of production. On the other hand, by giving special privileges, licenses, quotas and reservations to others, government rewards non-producers or less-efficient producers. All of this results in economic chaos. Same things happen in feudalistic systems. The forced economic inequality based on government coercion results in economic destruction.

Free Economic Inequality versus Forced Economic Inequality

Economic inequality based on freedom of individuals to exploit their own intelligence and talent is significantly less visible than the economic inequality that results because of forced planning or government coercion. This is because of the fact that economic inequality based on economic freedom serves to raise the standard of living of all, As a result, in a free society, even the poorest individuals enjoys and consumes substantially increasing quantity of wealth. On the other hand, in feudalistic or socialist regimes, as the very basic power of production and development is reduced to significant degrees, the width of economic inequality becomes too much visible with the poorest suffering starvations and penury while the officials, bureaucrats and politicians enjoying material wealth.
Before 1991, when India accepted the path of liberalization, Indian society was suffering with extreme forced economic inequalities where the standard of living of common man was substantially low graded. With the induction of liberalization movement, not only the production and development of Indian society increased, but also the standard of living of common man also improved significantly. This exactly was the result of loosening the force economic inequality trends and letting the inequalities develop freely, which obviously are less visible.
In further freer societies such as United States, an economic inequality that is based on economic freedom and capitalism are further less visible. The fact is greater freedom results in greater prosperity of whole society and less extreme width of economic inequalities.

1. An explanation of this phenomenal truth is here “The story of Socialism, Public Welfare, and Brain Drain” [↩]
2. Meaning of Freedom [↩]

In a free-society with individuals having complete self-ownership, (Capitalist society) the production of wealth vitally depends on division of labor, a system of production in which all the labor required is broken down into separate, distinct occupations. Obviously, each individual is free and self-responsible enough to decide at his own to what occupation suits him well and serves his self-interests in most proficient way. A society of free self-governing individuals essentially depends on each individual’s self-interest and his ability to exploit his own talent and efforts for fulfilling his needs, desires and self-interests and that makes rational-selfishness as the virtue of the free individual. Division of labor increases the amount of knowledge used in production in ratio to the number of specializations and sub-specializations involved in the process of production. Auto producers have different body of knowledge than that of petroleum, refinery producers, wheat producers have different set of knowledge from both of the previous, and further they have different set of knowledge than the farmers engaged in producing other foodstuffs, vegetable growers, or dairy farmers.
In a non-division of labour system like that of socialist system or the collectivist systems, self-sufficiency becomes the central motive of individuals as they acts as collectivist and self-interest is forgotten. The total capacity of society to incur and further develop knowledge decreases abruptly as all individuals engage in acquiring self-sufficiency by means of adopting and following the common set of wealth production.

Division of Labour and Benefits of Talent

A division of labour system provides enough space and incentive for the individuals occupied in different sets of knowledge of specialization and sub-specializations to devote all their human intellect and efforts to not only use the current knowledge but also to discover, invent and innovate new ways and knowledge to increase production. Division of labour enables a society to use the benefits of geniuses to the maximum extent, while it provides maximum incentive for the genius to use his intellect in development, innovations and entrepreneurship. In a collectivist society, this is not possible, as the genius in such societies, along with other common individuals, must devote most of his time in attaining self-sufficiency first. In India, some decades ago and even at present, division of labour is not definitely present; most of the young students devote their time to achieve degrees from governmental education system in order to gain some or any sort of job in government or private service sector. Hardly anyone devotes his intellect and abilities to any set of specialization of knowledge based on his interest and abilities. Hardly anyone think of devoting his time in research works and furthering knowledge, hence, Indian society lacks innovators. That doesn’t mean that Indian society is or was incompetent of innovations and inventions in present or past, the lack of it only represents the partial slavery imposed by the collectivist system and socialist government under which, the genius amongst the collective is wasted upon. Even if some genius struggle such situation and still manages to radiate his intellect, he never gains the full essence of his own efforts and hence is lost due to the lack of incentives.
In a free society with division of labor, geniuses are able to devote their time to science, invention, organization and direction of productive activity of others and thus instead of being lost in obscurity, they becomes Einsteins, Darwins, Brails and Fords. In a free society not only the genius but everyone is enabled to concentrate on the kind of work he is best suited and that promotes his self-interest based on his intellectual capacity and body endowments. Hence, such a society helps the individuals with rare talents in music, arts, sports, medicines, engineering, etc. In absence of division of labour, along with productive geniuses, such people with specific talents to be athletes, or painters, writers, philosophers, actors, sculptors, musicians, surgeons, engineers etc often lacks enough opportunities and are forced either to forget about their specific interests and talents, or to pursue their talents and suffer poverty and scarcity of opportunities. Since division of labour provides enough opportunities and complete freedom for the innovators, inventors, developers and directors of labour, such a free society necessarily provides enough space for machinery usage and modernization of process of production, also, it provides complete freedom for the genius and common producers to use the resources with utmost efficiencies hence increase the wealth production manifolds. Division of labour increases the efficiency of learning process in connection with production by making education and communication and all activities concerned with transmission, storage and development of knowledge into specializations. In a free society with individual sovereignty, individual may remain unemployed only because of his own choice; otherwise, market provides enough opportunities for the individual to engage in any productive process or service to earn self-dependency. Such few, who by nature lacks any potential to attain self-dependence (naturally disabled or victims of accidents etc) can easily attain benevolent support from the free individuals of the society in attaining self-dependency. As a free-society essentially represents most beneficial conditions for wealth production under division of labour, individuals in such society prospers with ease and further their life in the pursuit of their happiness.

Division of labour and consistency with freedom

Private ownership of the means of wealth production is the fundamental pre-condition of the pursuit of self-interest. Division of labour essentially depends on private ownership of means of production, which is based on the nature of gains of free division of labour. The most important ones are the multiplication and transmission of knowledge and benefits of the talented. The rational idea of private property ownership comes out from the fact that individuals possess unique independent minds, which permits and necessitates them to have separate independent knowledge and to make independent judgements, decision, and act on them with his separate independent calibre. In a free society every individual gains from the fact that other people possess knowledge that he does not and an intelligence separate and often much greater than his own. To maintain maximum benefits, it is necessary that others be able to acquire and apply their knowledge in production on their own initiative with perfect decision making freedom, without having his approval, orders, permissions or license, as he would be certainly unable to give in any rational way as he necessary lacks the knowledge and intelligence that would be required to make such decisions. To act, work and produce, people must possess material means of actions and production, In order for them to act independently from one another, they must possess wealth independently from one another that is there must be private property, including private ownership of natural resources and other means of production. Private property rights are essential condition for proficient production, prosperity and more importantly individual freedom as it provides maximum space for efficient usage of resources in virtue of producing wealth hence eradicating poverty of masses.
A libertarian society provides property rights in order to provide peaceful, justified, conflict-free and productive usage of resources. Unlike human body, external bodies and natural resources are not directly controlled by one’s will and initially they are unowned. In order to provide a rational, conflict-free rule of assignment of property rights, a libertarian society prefers the Lockean law of homestead that provides the relevant objective link of appropriation that is the transformation and using of the previously unowned resource. This approach provides the relevant objective motive of justice as the first user of a previously unowned resource naturally have a better claim than the second or consequent users. This is pertinent with independence of Individuals as the first owner of the resource can definitely let others to possess the resource for production at some rent or dealing for a period, or he may completely sell-off his property rights to other. The relevant question in such situations is not that who possess the resource; rather it is who the owner of the resource is. As explained earlier, a natural resource is not wealth until a man uses his talent and labour to make the resource productive and useful for the men, as the first user transformed that unowned resource into wealth making it possible to be used for the benefits of men, he naturally is the reasonable owner of the resource and deserves complete property rights over it. Obviously all the consequent wealth produced by the help of that resource is also inadvertently the rightful property (in fact, the results of his labour and intellect) and he holds complete right over it. In case, he suffers lack of talent to use the resource to maximum beneficial extent, he obviously gains the chance to sell-off his property right freely to other individual interested and able in using that resource proficiently. Such a system essentially provides justice and peace as it avoids any specific conflict, it is based on reason as the first user of the resource definitely posses a far important link with the resource than the later users. Once the first comer sells his property right to others, he naturally abolishes any objective link with that resource, wealth or property. Self-ownership and property rights essentially provide complete freedom for individuals to possess and accumulate wealth and further produce it freely and hence abolishes the common norms of partially slavery under government in the form of compulsory taxation, fiat currency, licensing system, censors, bans and criminalization of acts that in no way involves any aggression of a man by other.

One of the most important theories to make the rounds in 20th century world politics was the ‘exploitation theory’ proposed by the German Political theorist Karl Marx. Leftists all over the world have found it to their political convenience to blindly accept this theory, and to convince themselves of the morality of the workers’ hours of toil.

Karl Marx shouted that the source of the profits gained by the Capitalists is the exploitation of labor’s productive effort. He accused scornfully, the capitalists of looting the workers of their rightful share of the returns of their productive labor. So according to Marx, profits are nothing but the ‘surplus value’ that the capitalist with-holds from the laborer.

Much of this proposition could be dismissed as emotional outburst of an unstable individual, unless there was a ‘scientific’ discourse from the man himself, in his famous work ‘Das Kapital’ published in 1867.

Marx’s theory of value

Marx, like other Classical economists, recognized the two kinds of values of any commodity: use value and exchange value. Use value being the personal utility that the commodity used as a consumer good yields to the consumer; while exchange value being the value that the commodity commands in a trade exchange in the market.

Marx in his preconceived mindset to arrive at an ‘objective’ theory of value, tried to find similarities in the properties of commodities that traded at the same exchange value at some particular point of time. He finally concluded that commodities with the same exchange value had the same amount(hours) of labor involved in producing them, and hence exchanged on equal terms. Thus was born Marx’s version of the Labor Theory of Value.

The fallacy in Marx’s theory of value

Marx believed that if two commodities were exchanged for each other, they had something in common and Marx propounded that to be the amount of labor hours required to produce the commodities. Thus Marx proposed that people exchange commodities which had equal number of labor hours spent in producing them.

The basic fallacy here with Marx’s perception of trade relations lies with the conditions of trade, and the source of value of any commodity. The question to be considered with respect to trade is: why would people exchange commodities of equal value?

If Alice and Bob have eggs and apples respectively, and both value the commodity that the other person has the same as the commodity he/she has, why would either of the two want to trade with each other? The only way trade could happen in this case is only when Alice values apples more than eggs; and Bob values eggs more than apples. Marx’s theory falls into a pit!

The other even more basic question on which Marx’s theory turns out to be nothing short of absurdity is: why would people consider the amount of labor hours involved in producing a commodity while valuing it? The only consideration of a buyer is to consider the commodity’s personal use value to him, which is based purely on his subjective preference scale.

In addition to that there are many questions which Marx’s ideology does not want to answer. For example if there are only 10 eggs in the market, and there are 15 buyers(they all want 15 eggs in total) then which 10 buyers will have their demand fulfilled. In the market the prices of the eggs will go up, which will result in the top most 10 buyers who value the eggs highest will get the eggs. But under Marx’s theory of value since the eggs had some specific hours of labor involved in it, therefore they cannot have some arbitrary higher values. Marxians do not bother themselves with the fact that there are not sufficient eggs to fulfill the needs of every individual.

What Austrian economics offers?

Austrian economic theory, unlike Marxism, offers two important points for anybody to remember:

1) People exchange commodities with each other because they expect to benefit from the exchange. The only condition is that, the parties involved must value the commodity that they buy from the other person more than the commodity that they give up(or sell).

2) The value of commodity is based on the subjective valuation of the buyer. Commodities have no ‘objective’ value.

In our previous example where there aren’t enough eggs in the market, the prices of eggs will go up and only the 10 most highest payers of eggs will get those eggs. This helps in the production of more eggs. Because the prices of eggs went up, there is no more profit incentive to the egg producer to produce eggs, and next time bring 15 eggs in the market. But under Marxian theory of exploitation since only rich people are able to buy the eggs for higher prices, the whole economy looks like a conspiracy against the poor people.

Even in the modern day India, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru are considered as “Gods”. Any attempt to criticize them is met by denial and hatred. I remember that years back, when I made a case against the socialist policies of Nehru in my college hostel, every one of them present there turned emotional. They argued that India is a poor country, and hence need intelligent planning, to which Nehru made significant contributions. Their response was similar to what you would get from sulky children when you point out that their parents could be wrong. “Breaking Free of Nehru”, by Sanjeev Sabhlok, a resigned IAS officer, flies in the face of such an attitude. Sabhlok is one of the very few Indian authors I have read who has a reasonably good understanding of Free Market Economics. He points out with extreme clarity and precision that the legacy of Nehruvian Socialism has done incalculable harm to India.

The author begins by clearly stating that this is not a book about blaming Nehru. He doesn’t question the allegedly “good” motives of Nehru, and is of the opinion that he was an honorable man. It is not the ends Nehru had in mind he questions, but the means he used to achieve them. He takes for granted that not many would argue against helping the poor. Using violent coercive means to achieve this end, however, produces the exact opposite result. This should be obvious. Nothing good was ever done through coercive means.

Sabhlok, who served the Indian Government for eighteen years, knows from his own experience that such policies breed corruption, poverty and inefficiency. He remembers an IAS officer who joined with him in 1982 saying that his “sole objective in joining the service was to make money”. He was once asked by a young man whether he moved to the Assam cadre from Haryana cadre as more money is to be made in Assam. In all the years he served the Indian Government, he didn’t come across a single officer who even compares with the public officials he met in Australia, where he works now. I don’t have to quote extensively from his work. Everyone knows these facts.

I find it really sad that Sabhlok’s attempt to set up a liberal political party in India didn’t succeed. India badly needs politicians who have studied political economy from a Classical and Austrian point of view. India, needless to mention, has never known the concept of liberty. Even when our freedom fighters and other politicians used words like “freedom”, they never clearly understood what it really means. A hampered market economy was the intellectual default. This wouldn’t have happened if people who know better had spoken up for the cause of Individual liberty. And that precisely is what books like “Breaking Free of Nehru” do.

I have, however, several differences with the book. I would like to mention it here. I don’t think Nehru’s motives were good. I think we should be really careful when branding the motives of a person as good, when the end result is chaos. Good-By what standard? We should remember the words of Ayn Rand-“Do not ever say that desire to do good by force is a good motive. Neither stupidity, nor power lust is a good motive”.

The author says that, in India, there was forceful expropriation of property and land in the manner of Robin Hood. Several thinkers, including Ayn Rand and her followers, have made this mistake. Robin Hood, in my opinion, was actually a good guy. I shall quote the philosopher Tibor Machan: “Often it is Robin Hood who is held up as the role model for justifying taxation: Didn’t he “steal” from the rich to “give” to the poor? Well, not, not really. In the original version of the legend, Robin Hood did just the opposite: He stole from those who stole from the poor and returned the loot to the rightful owners. In those days the upper classes, from the king to all his cronies, routinely engaged in extortion. They disguised this, however, with the phony claim that everything belongs to the king and his cronies. Yes, monarchs and those who rationalized monarchy spun this fantasy and managed to sell it to the people that they where the rightful owners “of the realm,” that they had a “divine right” to rule us. This way when the bulk of the country went to work on the farm or wherever, they had to pay “rent” to the monarch and his cronies.”

Like the author, I don’t think that progressive taxation is compatible with Capitalism. It is true that marginal utility of money decreases with increase in wealth, and a rich person cares far less for a thousand Rupees than a poor person. However, this doesn’t contradict my position. There is a limitless need for wealth. The total utility of the wealth a person has should go on increasing so long as wealth has any positive marginal utility to him. There is a need for more wealth so long as additional wealth has any marginal utility. Progressive taxation would only undermine savings and capital accumulation. Taxation is completely incompatible with Capitalism. There is also the Inherent immorality of taxing Peter to pay Paul.

There are some statements in the book, which libertarians like me can’t agree with. Freedom, the author says, is good, and anarchy is bad. I can’t disagree more. Anarchy is the logical end result of total freedom. Anarchy and Capitalism are fully compatible. There is no justification for a bunch of robbers to take money forcefully from you and providing you services, forbidding that you buy from others. All services, including defense and security services could be provided by private individuals. Government is in fact a criminal organization which robs murders and drafts the citizens in a particular geographical area.

The author makes a case for Government regulations quoting an example of a coal miner working under dangerous conditions. However, it is not at all evident that there is a need for a Government to ensure safety for the worker. In case a worker dies in a free society, the Insurance Company of the employer would have to compensate the employee’s family. Insurance companies, hence, would have a policy to make sure that its customers ensure safe working conditions, as their profits would depend on it.

Another point where I disagree with Sabhlok is on social security and public funded education. We libertarians don’t want the poor to starve or children to go without education. Quite the contrary! We believe that the society would deal with these issues in a better manner in the absence of Government coercion. Under Capitalism, people who deserve such aid would not be many and could easily be taken care of by private organizations and voluntary charity.

All said, I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand Individual liberty in an Indian context. Also visit his Freedom Team Of India website, and consider joining the Freedom team.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels say in their famous work ‘The Communist Manifesto’:

“It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production.”

So according to Marx and Engels, capitalist economies suffer from an inherent trait of periodic depressions. They go on to explain further:

“Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property”

According to them, the root cause of a depression is too much prosperity. For better understanding of this subject, I would also like to cite the Marxian crises theory, which revolves around the concept of the falling tendency of the profits in capitalist economies. Marxist writers often use this in various ways to put forward their theory of Imperialism. However, I would restrain myself from explaining that here.

The basic premise of the overproduction doctrine is that a capitalist economy, as it gets more and more efficient with labor-saving machines introduced for the production of goods, moves towards a state of increased efficiency which leads to overproduction and that overproduction causes losses. Therefore the core reason behind the losses are overproduction and increased efficiency. Because of overproduction, there are no more profits in the economy, and hence the economy goes into a deep depression. So, it is the lack of profits which causes depression.

In order to debunk this Marxist proposition, we need to understand what causes profits to exist in the market. I will explain how profits never cease to exist in a non-stationary economy where consumers’ preferences and production conditions change so often. I will start of by quoting Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises from his famous work ‘Human Action’:

“Profit is not related to or dependent on the amount of capital employed by the entrepreneur. Capital does not “beget” profit. Profit and loss are entirely determined by the success or failure of the entrepreneur to adjust production to the demand of the consumers. There is nothing “normal” in profits and there can never be an “equilibrium” with regard to them. Profit and loss are, on the contrary, always a phenomenon of a deviation from “normalcy,” of changes unforeseen by the majority, and of a “disequilibrium.”

What Mises says here is that the origin of profits (and losses) is due to the “disequilibrium” phenomenon. So how does this “disequilibrium” phenomenon actually express itself like in a real economy?

Suppose that a market is dumped with millions of tonnes of potatoes much more than the consumer’s desire to purchase. This causes the market gets cleared only when the prices decrease to a large extent. This might lead to immense losses to the farmers, but can these losses caused by the overproduction in one sector of the economy cause a recession? The answer is no.

Lets go further and ask, does this overproduction in any way lower the average rate of profit in the economy. Again no, it doesn’t. The partial overproduction in a particular sector of the economy leads to partial underproduction in some other sector of the economy. Like in our example, the overproduction of potatoes means that the equipments and labor that were used in growing potatoes could have been used better in some other sector of the economy.

How would this show up in the price levels? The prices of the commodities that are underproduced(because of employment of resources in overproduction of potatoes) will rise proportionately and lead to higher profits. The losses that are made in the sector where overproduction causes havoc is compensated by profits in the sectors where commodities are underproduced. In simple words potato farmers will be making huge losses and the wheat, rice, barley farmers will be making huge profits.

This is what Mises calls a “disequilibrium” phenomenon. The market always moves in a direction to minimize this disequilibrium, but almost never reaches equilibrium because of various factors like the change in consumers’ preferences, natural causes etc.

Having explained the basic misconception, I would also like to deal with such speculations which contemplate the possibility of an overproduction in every sector of the economy. People argue overproduction everywhere could lead to losses everywhere completely wiping out profits from the economy. But there is no need to worry, the market has answers again. An overall overproduction everywhere in the economy still doesn’t set the “disequilibrium” that exists between the preferred quantities of various goods into equilibrium. Here one needs to understand that people’s needs are humongous and can never be satisfied. The market can only try to provide the proportionate quantities of various commodities according to the consumers’ preferences. Profits (and losses) are nothing but the signals that guide producers to adopt to the consumers’ preferences, and they never would cease to exist.

Being a Socialist up till a few months ago, I spent countless hours figuring a way out to enable a central planner to somehow manage to order the exact amount of production required to satisfy the maximum demand for the maximum people, and I did reach onto some complicated unrealistic solutions, but nothing beats the simplicity and realism of the Free Markets.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who rose to the chair in 1999, and since then been holding power despite the Washington backed coup attempt of 2002, is certainly in news now than ever before. Chavez has always been vocal about his aim of establishing 21st century Socialism in his country. Whatever that means, lets hope the almighty Marxist Praxis does not trust price controls as the economic tool towards that dream.

Venezuela is currently suffering from severe shortages in the supply of various goods, in particular rice. The nation reminds us of the erstwhile USSR in this aspect, as it does in many other perspectives. Only that direct physical force against the masses has not been let loose yet. Venezuela has been reeling under the impact of shortages in the supply of various goods since 2003, and now the crisis has hit rice supply as well. Keeping up with propaganda records, Chavez has launched a propaganda tirade against private suppliers. He has accused private suppliers of hoarding supply of rice. There could be a certain element of truth in it, suppliers could indeed be hoarding supplies to a certain extent. But that’s definitely not where the fundamental problem lies. The causal problem of this crisis lies in price-controls which have grown in size ever since 2003.

I will first explain the economic basics of prices, and then lead into the cause of shortages, inflation and hoarding.

What are prices, and what do they say? The price of a product simply shows how much money you should give up to obtain it. Then, what do you prices say? And why do prices of commodities change so often in markets? The answer is, people are willing to give up different quantities of money for the same homogeneous product at different points of time. This might sound vague, so lets get on with an example.

You are given 3 bags of rice. You have a particular preference scale based on your individual liking, and it shows those immediate needs that you would like to satisfy with the three bags of rice. The first immediate need that you fulfill with a bag of rice is to feed yourself. So, the first bag of rice goes to feeding yourself. You decide to use the second bag of rice to make some cakes. The third bag goes to feed your pet dog. This explains your preference scale. Your highest valued purpose is to feed yourself, followed by making some cakes, and finally feeding your dog.

Now imagine, you have only two bags of rice, and you are to decide what among the different uses of rice you are going to sacrifice. Since you have feeding your pet dog the least important of all uses, you decide to let your dog starve. Now suppose your neighbor has some extra bags of rice in his kitchen and he is ready to sell it to you for some money. How much would you be ready pay for that extra bag of rice which you would use now to feed your dog? You would see if the utility (or use) you gain from that extra third bag of rice is more than the utility you attach to the money you pay to your neighbor for that extra bag. Lets assume you would probably pay $2 to get a third rice bag from your neighbor, and you use it to feed your starving dog.

Lets further assume now that you have only one bag of rice. So you would have to give up on both feeding your dog as well as making tasty cakes. Now again, your neighbor has an extra bag of rice. How much would you be ready to pay for that second bag of rice? The same kind of reasoning as used earlier applies here as well, you would buy the second bag of rice only when the utility you achieve by buying it is greater than the utility you attach to its price. Perhaps you’d be ready to pay $5 to get the second rice bag from your neighbor, to make some cakes.

Now lets go further and assume that you have no rice bags with you. And again, your neighbor has an extra bag to sell. This time too you’d buy the bag of rice only when the utility you gain from the rice bag you buy is greater than the utility that you attach with the money that you spend to buy it. Now, you would be ready to pay almost anything to buy that bag of rice from your neighbor, and that’s because the utility you attach with the bag of rice is your life itself. You would have to starve without that bag of rice.

We have now seen three instances where the price offered to buy an extra bag of rice varies, quite drastically in fact. Economists explain this as the “law of diminishing marginal utility”. Marginal utility of a commodity is the utility that you gain (or lose at times) from an additional unit of the commodity.

This explains why prices change at different moments in the market. When there is excess supply of a commodity in the market, people would have the liberty to use those commodities for less valuable goals, like how you used the third bag to feed your pet dog. So they are willing to pay only low prices. On the other hand, when there is deficit in the supply of a commodity, people are strained to obtain sufficient goods. They are forced to cut down on their frivolous expenses, like your preference to feed your pet dog. The price of the commodity in this case is high. This explains how prices are set in a market.

What the market does is it rations the goods that are available to the most immediate needs by raising prices when supplies are constrained. So, high prices enables everybody to satisfy their most intense immediate demands, while restricting them from using further units of the commodity towards less intense needs.

So when supplies are inadequate, the price of the commodity increases to make sure that the commodity is diverted towards the most urgent needs rather than being wasted in satisfying less intense needs. This means that suppliers would gain lots of profits.

The suppliers then invest this extra revenue to expand their production in order to gain more profits. Note, monopolies might restrain from producing more to maintain current profits, but they won’t be able to do it for long, until competing firms sensing profits enter the business to produce more of the commodity. This increase in supply would cause prices to go plunge. So high prices leading to high profits are market signals to encourage increased production. And this is how the free market deals with the economic problem.

Governments on the other hand have a very different way of dealing with high prices due to insufficient production of a commodity. They deal with the economic problem with price ceilings. The Government sets arbitrary prices to commodities whose prices are “too high”, and it thinks the problem is solved. But that’s exactly where the problem starts. The lower prices leaves no profits to be gained or even sends firms right into losses, and that discourages firms from increasing production. Witnessing lower prices, consumers demand more of the commodity than they would at the genuine free market price level. That is like, if a sack of rice were available for just 50 cents you’d probably buy hell a lot of rice bags and waste them for weird reasons. We have in hand a very critical situation, production of the commodity plunges due to decreasing profits or outright losses, but at the same time people are demanding more of the commodity. This leads to shortages.

This is what is being experienced in Venezuela because of price controls imposed by Chavez’s government.

The other fact to remember is that price controls which are imposed initially on a a few commodities are spread to other commodities as well. In fact governments are forced to spread the price control regime because of their initial mistake of controlling prices of a few commodities. Why does this happen? When the price of a commodity is arbitrarily set low, people are encouraged to demand more of the commodity but since there is not sufficient supply available, goods are sold to people on a first come first serve basis. This could have a very important side-effect. The supplies do not get diverted to the most intense needs because those customers whose demand for the product is extremely important is prohibited from bidding higher prices for the commodity.

So when such needs are not satisfied, consumers search for alternative goods to buy. People who failed to secure rice because of the shortages would try to buy wheat which is not controlled by the government’s price control regime. As more people who failed to get rice start bidding for wheat, the price of wheat skyrockets. And now the government steps in again to impose price controls on wheat as well. And thus, the price control regime keeps spreading and turns into a universal price control system, with no kind of free market pricing to guide production and consumption.

Now coming to the problem of hoarding. First reason why some people hoard supplies is because they are unsure about the availability of future supplies due to chronic shortages. The second type of hoarding is carried out by speculators who expect a higher price for the product in the future when the price control regime collapses, or they might sell the supplies in the black market at prices higher than the government set arbitrary ones. It must be realized that the problem of hoarding is definitely not the cause of the shortage, it is a minor side effect of the real culprit–price controls.

The Venezuelan economy is in the mud, and the price control regime is spreading all over the economy. The system is bound to collapse and cause serious problems to the Chavez government. It should also be observed if Chavez does a Stalin here, to use force against his own people. Reports emanating from Caracas already show the seizure of rice processing units, and also the spread of the price control regime towards other goods like meat, sugar ad other goods. Just another case of price controls bringing disaster.

Venezuela will not be able to reach Socialism because Socialism is an impossible theory, it demonizes the same tools by which pro-Free Market economies achieve efficiency in distribution of resources and satisfies the demand of the market. In the name of achieving more Socialism Hugo Chavez keeps on grabbing more and more power, and this is causing Venezuelan people to lose their Liberties.

Editor:This is a guest article written by an ex-socialist I know through Orkut. He went on trying to understand Socialism on a more concrete level(beyond the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” rhetoric), and to understand why all the implementations of Socialism failed miserably. His conclusion was, that “Socialism cannot calculate“. In the coming days we will be bringing you more of his articles.

Debates setting the two dominant economic systems of the 20th century viz. socialism and capitalism on opposite poles have always witnessed the acceptance of the superiority of capitalism on account of the better incentives available under it’s basic scheme of things which motivate the individual towards excellence. This induced the depressed to `order’ for the creation of a new `socialist man’ who works for nothing but the goodness of his comrades, and passion he holds for his work. Such moral proponents were the root cause of movements like the Stakhanovite movement in the erstwhile USSR. These things aside, the problems of a Centrally planned socialist economy¹ are immensely larger than mere motivational factors, it lies in the very structure and character of it’s economic institutions.

This was starkly exposed in the `socialist calculation debate’ of the early decades of the 20th century which involved waring minds (of economists) belonging to hostile camps. The capitalist camp was headed by economists from the Austrian School, most notably: Friedrich August von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises; the Socialist camp was represented by Oscar Ryszard Lange and Abba Ptachya Lerner. This article serves the purpose for purporting the essential ideas of Capitalism and the grave shortcomings of Central planning.

The fundamental feature of the Capitalism is the price system, with profit motive and economic competition as it’s inseparable soul. The price system is thus the most ingenious component of the market economy, so invincible that socialist economists of the 19th century trying to apply the labor theory of value to determine the prices of commodities (based on the amount of `socially necessary labor’ required to produce a commodity) accepted their defeat, and adopted the market pricing system, after all the price system is nothing but an expression of the subjective preferences of market players. In simple words, demand and supply forces determine the price of a commodity. Commodities do not have any magical value in themselves.
This was the essential outcome of the marginalist revolution.

However, a group of economists–namely the “market socialists”–persisting under the auspices of Polish economist Oscar Lange refused to bow down (except for their acceptance of the revelations of the marginal revolution), in fact they were immensely excited about prospects of their own system which could allow for central planning of the economy. These economists proposed a hybrid system – adopting the pricing system of the capitalist economy and also the `goodness’ of central planning. They seriously believed they did it.

The “market socialists” proposed the arbitrary fixing of prices of consumer goods and allow supply and demand to match at some given price. They were able to explain their system with temporary success:
if the prices were fixed too high, goods would stay unsold on the racks of stores; and if prices are fixed too low, shortages would result. The planning board would fix the prices on a `trial-and-error’ basis to determine the `clearing-price’ of the market, and the economy will be on it’s feet.

So far so good, or is it? It didn’t occur to them that they created the body of their economic system without a soul–the absence of private ownership of the means of production–until Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises came up with his seminal work, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” in 1920. Mises pointed out that without private ownership of the means of production, in other words, without competitive bidding from various private players for the ownership of capital and land, there was no way to rationally ascertain the prices of the various higher-order goods (capital and land).

This further means there is no scope for profit-loss calculation, and there ends any dream of rational allocation of resources under centrally planned socialism. The acquisition and usage of capital
resources in a centrally planned economy are merely `internal transfers’ within a single body since the State is the only owner of capital goods.

Oskar Lange who talked about such a system himself found convenient to copy the prices of a Capitalist system, than to follow his own suggestion, when he was made a member of Polish Central planning commission. As the famous joke goes, two socialist leaders are discussing their plans to bring Communist revolution all over the world. One of them suggests “well we can convert the whole world into Communism, but lets leave one capitalist country as Capitalism. Lets not convert Hong Kong into Socialism”, the other socialist replies, “Well Comrade what are you talking about? We must convert the whole world into Socialism, and get rid of all the Capitalist oppression, why leave Hong Kong”, the other socialist replies “Well we gotta copy the prices from somewhere.”

For those who did not get the above joke, without a Market system, its really impossible for anyone to rationally allocated the resources in a Society. For all you know you can start creating iPods made of gold covering, and use all that gold on the iPod, rather than making its circuit out of it(which makes much more sense, since gold is a better conductor of electricity). By having a price system you will realize that its not worth making an iPod out of pure gold because of high prices of gold, and less market price of iPods, people are not willing to pay for a gold iPod, also gold can be better used for something else.

Profits and losses play a very vital role in the market system. Profits in a sector indicate that the commodity (or service) in question is of use to the consumers (and hence demanded by them);
losses mean the reverse, that is, the commodity (or service) in question is not of much use to the consumers (and hence not demanded). Because of the absence of economic calculation socialism would lead to massive wastage of resources since the planners would be left groping in the dark to know which sector of the economy is in immediate need of a particular higher-order good.

Some mathematical economists have tried to ascertain arbitrary prices to capital goods by analyzing the price of consumer goods that are produced using the capital good. But such indirect measures have shown no scope of accurate determination of the prices of higher order goods.

1. Socialism, Welfare, Braindrain, Reason for Liberty [↩]