User:Janosabel/OtherTries

Binary economics states that it is the expression of a new paradigm or new understanding of reality that creates a new economics; a new politics; a new justice and a new morality. In its economics aspect, binary economics is a market economics whose markets work for everybody rather than just a few; and it upholds private property but private property, again, for everybody rather than just a few. A summary might be – a justice which creates efficiency and an efficiency which creates justice.

Binary economics is fundamentally different from all forms of conventional economics (be they expressions of right-wing, centrist or left-wing theory). Thus, unlike most mainstream economics, binary economics accommodates belief in God, unicity and ethics; it does not assume that humans only follow their own immediate short term self interest; and it does not assume that humans (as distinguished from capital instruments) do all, or nearly all, of the physical creation of wealth. As a study, binary economics is not reductionist, does not ignore the imbalance in power relationships between people, and does not assume that extensive poverty (over half of the world's population lives on under $3 per day) is inevitable. Being concerned with social justice and economic justice it also notes that allegedly successful 'free market' economies show symptoms of profound failure – thus figures from the 2004 Census show that one fifth of Americans live on under $7 per day.

Furthermore, binary economics addresses a number of weaknesses in the current economic system which are dismissed by conventional economics as being of no, or low, importance. The weaknesses are:--
 * Almost all of the modern money supply is in the form of interest-bearing debt created and owned by the banking system
 * The money supply is generally not directed at productive capacity
 * Forms of productive capital remain narrowly owned and there is no policy to spread the ownership of productive capacity throughout the population
 * People do not have their own independent incomes

Background
Although elements of binary economics can be found elsewhere, the first clear formulation of the subject was by Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler (the American Aristotelian philosopher) in their unhappily entitled book The Capitalist Manifesto (1958). The title is a Cold War nomenclature in opposition to communism but the book’s thinking can only be truly understood as being outside all left-wing and right-wing economics and politics – which is demonstrated by the attacks which were made. Thus, on the left, Soviet Pravda saw the book as “ramblings based on thinking along a dead end of history” – which was to prove egregious as communism was soon to collapse and binary economics is today increasingly being seen as a very modern economics and politics – while, on the right, Milton Friedman was nonplussed and could only conclude that binary economics must be “Marx stood on its head”.

Very obviously, extreme left saw binary economics as extreme right; and hard right saw it as extreme left. And equally obviously, the puzzlement and confusion of Pravda and Friedman only serve to confirm that binary economics is outside both left-wing and right-wing paradigms.

Kelso and Adler (and, later, Patricia Hetter Kelso) were to continue to write ground-breaking books explaining how capital instruments provide an increasing percentage of the wealth and, crucially, how and why capital is narrowly owned in the modern industrial economy. Their analysis then has an important consequence easily understood by market theorists – if what increasingly produces a larger percentage of the wealth (capital) is narrowly owned, then a properly balanced economy (implementing Say’s Theorem (Law)) cannot come into being unless, on true free market and private property principles, capital becomes much more widely distributed. This is at the heart of the binary claim to create an efficiency which creates justice and vice versa.

Kelso and Hetter gave practical form to their thinking and proposed new binary share holdings which (with exception for research, maintenance and depreciation) would pay out their full capital earnings, be capable of being insured and, if loss occurred, would occasion no recourse to the new binary owners. Because of the full payout provision the binary holdings might well pay out more than five to nine times what is typically paid out today. Thus what was being proposed was a new widespread capital ownership to achieve a widespread income (thereby balancing supply and demand) and associated individual incomes which can be possessed by anybody in the population irrespective of whether or not that person is in a conventional job or not.

The “binary” (in ‘binary economics’) sometimes perplexes people. It means “composed of two” because it suffices to view the factors in production as being but two (labor and capital) and thus there are only two ways of genuinely earning a living − by labor or by the ownership of productive capital. In viewing the two factors it can also be observed that humans own their own labor but they do not necessarily own the other factor – capital.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)
Very often the first acquaintance people have with binary economics comes through today’s Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). These stem from a binary concept although it is important to understand that (the original concept having been implemented for the purposes of the old paradigm rather than the new binary one) present ESOPs are not true binary ESOPs. Among other things, present ESOPs do not have full payout of earnings and – the key binary concept – do not make use of interest-free loans issued from the central bank and administered by the banking system.

It should be noted that the ESOP is only one of several techniques − e.g., Individual Share Ownership Plan, Consumer Share Ownership Plan, General Share Ownership Plan, Mutual Share Ownership Plan − which can be used to broaden capital ownership but all the techniques have at their heart the use of central bank-issued interest-free loans for the creation and spreading of productive capacity. Without those loans the primary defect in the present ESOP legislation will remain in that it requires poor and working people to acquire capital primarily with the present earnings of labor rather than primarily with the future earnings of capital.

Binary Economics Today
Over the last few years binary economics has been developing and, in particular, making universal its appeal so that its essence is more easily understood around the world. Apart from the books, key papers have been presented at an important series of conferences focussing on money supply and the real economy (see Money Supply and Real Economy Conferences below). Whereas, for example, the proposed uses of central bank-issued interest-free loans had been limited or under-developed, they now cover all the economy as long as the spreading of productive capacity is involved; whereas public capital and environmental capital were, relatively, neglected, they are now principal subjects; and whereas the first emphasis was on capital ownership it is now on the supply of interest-free loans for the spreading of productive capacity which can take many different forms. The emphasis on the interest-free loan supply is especially important for Islam. But, most important of all, binary economics is now seen to be by far the most universal economics with the most efficiency and the most justice so that it falls naturally within the global justice movement – see http://www.globaljusticemovement.net and monetary reform – and, at the same time, it is an economics which corresponds deeply with core aspects of religious belief. It can thus be taken up by any society and any faith and, in so doing, they may call it their own.

One World…

For example, Binary economics has a concept of unicity embracing all aspects of life. This resonates with Muslims (Tawhid); Christians ( Kingdom (or Kin-dom) of God); Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs (Dharma); and Jews (Shalom). …Many Faiths

Binary economics says that past and present then come together to create a new economics, a new politics, a new social morality, a solution to the major problems of the environment and a deepening of democracy. On the latter point, the political vote is far from enough. In a world where 25,000 people die each day from the effects of unclean water, a deepening of democracy requires not only the vote but also the proper provision of clean water, health services, housing, education and also some form of income, if only minimal, for all individuals.

Other consequences of binary economics include an end to economic colonialism, a diminution of the national debt; an improvement in the position of women and policy to unite differing groups.

Uses of Central Bank-issued Interest-free Loans for the Spreading of Productive Capacity
Binary economics proposes that central bank-issued interest-free loans should be administered by the banking system and that, while no interest would be charged, there would be an administrative cost as well as capital credit insurance if necessary. This supply of interest-free loans for the spreading of productive capacity as well as for environmental and public capital would take place in circumstances of (over time, on market principles) a move to 100% banking reserves so that the banking system would not be continually creating money (as happens today) but would be confined to lending (with permission) depositors’ money and the bank’s own capital.

The uses of the central bank-issued interest-free loans can be summarized as follows: –

Public capital investment
Interest-free loans would allow hospitals, social housing, roads, bridges, waterworks, schools etc. to be built for one half, or one third of the present cost. However, the capital projects can still, if wished, be built, managed, even owned, by the private sector.

With interest-free loans not only would the cost of public capital projects be halved or more but their financing would not need to be done with interest-bearing money. A major consequence would be a great diminution of the National Debt.

Loans to students
Students should not be unnecessarily burdened with interest-bearing debt maybe for the rest of their lives. Interest-free loans should be available to students whilst they complete their studies.

Environment
Greed is also caused by the present financial system which creates sufficient money for the principal of interest-bearing loans to be repaid but does not create sufficient money with which to repay the interest. The result is that more interest-bearing money has to be created (with more inflation and more people going into debt) and more frenetic activity in the endeavour to try to make repayment. Worse, the system favours the short term destruction of natural wealth rather than its long term maintenance. Unless the role of interest in the financial system is substantially diminished not only is the environment at risk but so is the stability of the world financial system.

Productiveness
Students of binary economics may wish to be briefly introduced to an important binary concept – productiveness. Binary productiveness and conventional productivity are completely different animals.

Conventional productivity, in the conventional classical and neo-classical sense, is the ratio of labor as input to the overall output. As a mathematical fraction, it is output divided by human input.

In contrast, binary productiveness is the percentage of total input that labor and capital each contributes to the output. In binary economics, labor and capital are viewed as being of a different, although co-operating, nature and therefore should be seen as separate inputs contributing to output. Capital contributes an increasing percentage as even Marx understood. For example, a man digging a hole with his hands only will take four hours. But, by using a form of capital − a shovel − he can dig the hole in one hour or dig four holes in the same amount of time it took him to dig one hole with his hands. The productiveness of the human labor is 25% while the productiveness of the capital shovel is 75%. Together, of course, man and shovel − labour and capital − produce much more than they would produce separately.

Where binary productiveness is concerned, it is also useful to consider the examples of an automated factory or a huge dam producing electricity and fresh water. In the case of the automated factory there is minimal or no human input (the work involved in design and building is over and has received its payment, and maintenance and repair are only maintenance and repair rather than a direct contribution to production).

In the case of the dam, with relatively little human input although it is critical, the physical output of the capital is huge and binary economics views the sun, weather and gravity as greatly contributing to the production. The latter are co-operating capital assets even if they are ones which cannot be owned. Binary economics views both humans and capital assets as production factors having an independent productiveness which does not stop their co-operating with other independent production factors but which does mean that their contribution to production requires individual recogntition.

Criticism of binary economics
Criticism of binary economics tends to concentrate on the example of the man digging the hole. A paper by Timothy D. Terrell summarizes a critique given by Timothy Roth on the shovel example. The criticism claims that: a) somebody invented the shovel; b) the shovel cannot be independent. Roth argues that someone with human capital had to invent the shovel before it could be used, so the presence of the shovel is not independent of human capital. Also, Roth notes the presumption that the human hole digger has no role in the productiveness of the shovel.

But, firstly, the fact that somebody invented the shovel has nothing to do with its present use for digging a hole and binary economics views the shovel as an independent contributor which co-operates with the man just as the man co-operates with the shovel.

Secondly, just as two humans can, and do, co-operate, so the man and the shovel co-operate to dig the hole and produce far more holes than either the man or shovel could do by themselves.

Moreover, binary economics does not say the human digger has no role in the shovel’s productiveness − both binary economics and Roth agree that man and shovel together produce far more than man or shovel separately.

Furthermore, when an automated factory, or a huge dam producing electricity and fresh water, are considered, the critics of the binary analysis of productiveness have a problem − in the case of the automated factory there is no human input (design and building have been paid for, and maintenance and repair are maintenance and repair but not a direct contribution to production). In the case of the dam, with relatively little human input although it is critical, the physical output of the capital is huge (and, don’t forget, the sun, weather and gravity can be viewed as co-operating capital assets but ones which cannot be owned).

Money Supply and Real Economy Conferences
The Conferences are part of a continuing series.


 * International Islamic University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August, 2002.
 * The Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia, January, 2004.
 * International Islamic University, Chittagong, Bangladesh, December, 2004.
 * McGill University, Montreal, Canada, September, 2005.
 * Asian University of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh, December, 2005.
 * The Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia, December, 2006.

Selected External Links

 * Center for Economic and Social Justice
 * Global Justice Movement Net
 * Global Justice Movement Org
 * Integrating Islamic Finance into Mainstream
 * Binary Economics - An Overview by Professor Robert Ashford
 * The Binary Alternative & The Future of Capitalism
 * The Binary Economics of Louis Kelso
 * http://ssrn.com/abstract=277508
 * http://www.cesj.org/binaryeconomics/price-money.html
 * http://cog.kent.edu/lib/TurnbullBook/TurnbullBook.htm
 * Capital Democratization

Selected Texts

 * Ashford, Robert The Binary Economics of Louis Kelso, (Rutgers Law Journal, vol. 22. 1990).
 * Ashford, Robert Louis Kelso’s Binary Economy (The Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 25, 1996).
 * Ashford, Robert & Shakespeare, Rodney (1999) Binary Economics the new paradigm.
 * Choudhury, Masudul Alam (2007) The Universal Paradigm and Islamic World-system. Economy, Society, Ethics and Science. Preface by Rodney Shakespeare.
 * el-Diwany, Tarek (2003) The Problem With Interest.
 * Gauche, Jerry Binary Modes for the Privatization of Public Assets, (The Journal of Socio-Economics. Vol. 27, 1998).
 * Greenfield, Sidney M. Making Another World Possible: the Torah, Louis Kelso and the Problem of Poverty (paper given at conference, Colombia University, May, 2006).
 * Kelso, Louis & Kelso, Patricia Hetter (1986 & 1991), Democracy and Economic Power.
 * Kelso, Louis & Adler, Mortimer (1958), The Capitalist Manifesto.
 * Kelso, Louis & Adler, Mortimer (1961), The New Capitalists.
 * Kelso, Louis & Hetter, Patricia (1967), Two-Factor Theory: the Economics of Reality.
 * Kelso, Louis (1957), Karl Marx: The Almost Capitalist (American Bar Association Journal, March, 1957)
 * Kurland, Norman The Federal Reserve Discount Window (Winter 1998, Journal of Employee Ownership Law and Finance).
 * Kurland, Norman A New Look at Prices and Money: The Kelsonian Binary Model for Achieving Rapid Growth Without Inflation.
 * Kurland, Norman; Brohawn, Dawn & Michael Greaney (2004) Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen: A Just Free Market Solution for Saving Social Security.
 * Miller, J.H. ed., (1994), Curing World Poverty: The New Role of Property.
 * Reiners, Mark Douglas, The Binary Alternative and Future of Capitalism.
 * Shakespeare, Rodney & Challen, Peter (2002) Seven Steps to Justice.
 * Shakespeare, Rodney, Integrating Islamic Finance into the Mainstream (paper delivered at Harvard, April, 2006)
 * Shakespeare, Rodney (2007) The Modern Universal Paradigm.
 * Shakespeare, Rodney & Proudfoot, Wilf (1976) The Two-factor Nation.
 * Turnbull, Shann (2001) The Use of Central Banks to Spread Ownership.
 * Turnbull, Shann (1975/2000), Democratising the Wealth of Nations.