Friday, 1 March 2013

Binary Economics

The following Wikipedian article on Binary Economics, or BE as I used to call it has been subjected to intellectual "vandalism" or so, its proponents claim. RS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Binary economics (aka Two-Factor Economics) is a theory of economics based on classical concepts of private property, limited economic power of government, and a free market, while introducing the idea of equal opportunity and universal access of every person to acquiring and owning income-producing capital. To achieve this objective, binary economics proposes significant reforms to the monetary and banking system, the tax system and the capital ownership system. The theory behind Binary Economics was first proposed by American lawyer Louis Kelso in The Capitalist Manifesto (1958) which he co-authored with the philosopher Mortimer Adler. The book's title is an expression of its background in Cold War polemics in opposition to The Communist Manifesto.[1]
The term "binary" derived from its heterodox treatment of labor and capital (but not in the sense of binary opposition).
According to the Kelso Institute in San Francisco, California and the Center for Economic and Social Justice (CESJ) in Arlington, Virginia,[2] Kelso’s “binary economics” (which Kelso and co-author Patricia Hetter Kelso previously referred to as “Two-Factor Theory”[3]) derives from the word “binary,” meaning “consisting of two parts.” Kelso divided the factors of production into two all-inclusive categories. These are 1) human (“labor”) inputs and 2) non-human (“capital”) inputs.
As such, “labor” includes manual, managerial, intellectual, entrepreneurial, etc., inputs. “Capital” includes inputs such as land and natural resources, tools, rentable space, infrastructure, plus intangibles such as patents, artificial intelligence, management systems, to the production of marketable goods and services.[4]
Binary economists contend that the nature and productiveness of capital has increased at a significantly faster rate than that of labor. This became evident at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when the ability to finance new capital out of “future savings” (increases in future production) instead of “past savings” (decreases in current or past consumption) became possible through the reintroduction of commercial banking and the development of the principles of central banking. At the same time, according to some binary economists, the “past savings” method of financing new technology has engendered a “wage system” in which a determinant number of people receive income solely or primarily from wages paid for labor supplemented with private or State welfare.
The “wage system,” binary economists assert,[5] is common to all economies today, and has led to increasing reliance of citizens on big government, political hostility toward free markets and private property, and extreme concentrations of wealth and power. In this view, Kelsonian binary economics and “expanded ownership” financing methods based on “future savings” offer a “Just Third Way” that avoids the ownership- and power-concentrating aspects of both capitalism and socialism by eliminating the presumed necessity for past savings.



[edit] Overview

Binary economics rejects the claim that Neoclassical economics alone promotes a ‘free market’ which is free, fair and efficient. (e.g., as an interpretation of the classical First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics). Binary economists believe freedom is only truly achieved if all individuals are able to acquire an independent economic base from capital holdings, and that the more democratic and participatory distribution of ownership rights can "deepen [social and political] democracy".[6]
Some binary economists present binary economics as based on the “three principles of economic justice” discussed in Chapter Five of Kelso and Adler’s The Capitalist Manifesto: 1) Participation, 2) Distribution, and 3) Limitation.[7] In the book’s Preface, Adler acknowledged that Kelso developed the basic theory.[8] Some binary economists believe that Adler’s chief contribution was to place Kelso’s theory within the Aristotelian/Thomist philosophical framework, thereby vesting it with classical intellectual credentials.

[edit] Participation

Participative justice, or “the principle of participation,” is the input principle that demands as a fundamental human right the equal opportunity for every person to contribute to the production of society’s marketable wealth both as a worker and as an owner of productive assets. Participative justice represents the moral dimension of all personal contributions to the “production side” of the economic equation from the macro- to the micro dimensions.

[edit] Distribution

Distributive justice, or “the principle of distribution,” is the outtake principle that holds that the contribution of labor to the economic process should be compensated at the free market-determined rate (or “just wage”) for each particular type of human contribution to the production of marketable wealth. This principle dictates that the contribution of capital should be compensated by the “just profit” generated by the project or enterprise. Profit is determined by the market-based value of contributed capital assets, or by the gross revenues resulting from market-determined “just prices” less the market-based cost of factors of production prior to sales, including labor. Distributive justice represents the moral dimension of all incomes earned on the “consumption side” of the economic equation, i.e., one cannot consume what is not produced in the form of consumption goods and services, or new capital assets.

[edit] Limitation

Limitation is the feedback principle that balances and restores participation and distribution within the economic system. Some binary economists prefer the term “Harmony” or “Social Justice” as they contend that “limitation” does not fully convey the meaning and purpose of a feedback principle, which includes corrective action.[9]
The central tenet of binary economics is that there are two interdependent components to productive output and to income: (1) that which is generated by human labor, and (2) that which is generated by capital. Classical economic theory of the school of David Ricardo, especially the “Labor Theory of Value”[10] tends to regard all output and income to be derived from labor alone, claiming that capital only serves to enhance the productivity of labor. Value, and thus the price to the consumer, consists of the total labor costs of production, either in the form of direct labor, or “congealed labor” in the form of capital.
The school of Adam Smith, on the other hand, attributes production to land, labor and capital. Price to the consumer is measured in terms of the utility of the item to the consumer, valued in terms of the labor the consumer expended to produce whatever the consumer exchanged for what was offered for sale.[11] Adherence to labor-based theories of production has resulted in the standard measure of productivity as output per labor hour.
Based on the three systemically interdependent principles of economic justice of Participation, Distribution, and Limitation, some binary economists hold that there are four “pillars” of an economically just society:
  • Limited economic power of the State, and maximized economic power of every citizen,
  • Free and open markets with minimal institutional barriers to personal choice as the best means of determining just wages, just prices, and just profits,
  • Restoration of the rights of private property, especially in corporate equity and other forms of business organization (“Private property” being defined as all rights, powers and privileges that an owner enjoys with respect to things, including all forms of productive capital.), and
  • Universal access to direct personal ownership of capital, individually or jointly in free association with others.[12]
Monetarist/Chicago and Austrian schools of economics and many of their offshoots accept the validity of the first three “pillars,” but in general do not recognize that institutional barriers may exist that could inhibit or prevent most people from acquiring and possessing property in capital.
Consistent with Adam Smith’s school of classical economics that attributes production to more than labor, Kelso argued that as technology advances, labor becomes less productive relative to capital as an input to production.[13] In an economy with rapidly improving technology, people who must subsist solely on wages from their labor contributions generally find themselves unable to produce sufficiently in a competitive marketplace to meet their needs. As described by labor economist Goetz Briefs,[14] governments, or unions backed up by government, begin implementing a principle of distribution that Kelso referred to as “needism,” that is, the idea that distribution should be based on need rather than on the relative value of inputs.[15] Consequently, to ensure that workers have adequate income, governments either mandate higher wages and benefits, or distribute welfare or subsidies directly. Each of these wage system alternatives acquiesce in the demands of labor unions for higher wage system entitlements. This increases production costs and raises prices to consumers, making companies less competitive in national and global markets.
Profits, since they are what accrue to the owners of capital after all costs have been met, do not increase costs, and thus do not raise prices. Kelso argued that profits generated by capital, based on a fundamental right of private property, should go to the owners of capital.[16] This was the point that Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers, made in testimony before Congress after being introduced to Kelso’s ideas:
“If workers had definite assurance of equitable shares in the profits of the corporations that employ them, they would see less need to seek an equitable balance between their gains and soaring profits through augmented increases in basic wage rates. This would be a desirable result from the standpoint of stabilization policy because profit sharing does not increase costs. Since profits are a residual, after all costs have been met, and since their size is not determinable until after customers have paid the prices charged for the firm’s products, profit sharing as such cannot be said to have any inflationary impact upon costs and prices.”[17]
Reuther’s analysis is revealing in light of the manner in which U.S. automakers and related industries were out-competed by Japanese companies in the 1970s. This created the “Rust Belt” in the heavily industrialized U.S. regions starting in the 1960s and radically reduced union membership from over 35% of private sector workers following the Second World War, to less than 7% today. Japan’s labor costs in 1968 were far less than in unionized U.S. competitors. Today, having followed the U.S. Keynesian-based wage system model of economic development, Japan, with labor costs high than in the U.S., is itself becoming non-competitive compared to China and India.
Under binary economics, the just wages and salaries representing the market-determined cost of labor should flow by right of private property to the owners of labor.[18] Kelso therefore contended that the obvious solution to the displacement of labor by capital in a free society is to make people who were formerly dependent on labor incomes alone into capital owners. As the title of an editorial in Life magazine summarized Kelso’s case, “If the machine wants our jobs, let’s buy it.”[19]
Binary economics argues financial savings prior to investment are not required on the basis that the present money supply is mostly created credit anyway.[20] They argue that newly created money invested on behalf of those without access to existing cash savings or collateral can be adequately repaid through the returns on those investments, which need not be inflationary if the economy is operating below capacity. The theory asserts that what matters is whether the newly-created money is interest-free, whether it can be repaid, whether there is effective collateral and whether it goes towards the development and spreading of various forms of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity.
Another contrast is that, in economic theories based on existing accumulations of savings as the sole source of financing for new capital, interest (as distinct from administration cost) is always considered necessary. In Binary Economics theory, interest charged on "future savings" (future increases in production) as opposed to interest charged on existing accumulations ("past savings," or prior reductions in consumption) is considered unjust, especially when development and spreading ownership of productive capacity are financed exclusively with future increases in production instead of past reductions in consumption.[21] Conventional economics accounts for the observed time value of money based on existing accumulations of savings and thus subject to interest, whereas binary economics allows for financing new capital formation with future savings, which is not subject to interest, only a "discount rate" taking into account the administrative cost of creating the money and the riskiness of the investment.
Some binary economists would explain Kelso’s financing proposals in other terms.[22] As analyzed by Dr. Harold G. Moulton, president of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, from 1928 to 1952, in The Formation of Capital,[23] during periods of rapid capital expansion, the financing for new capital formation comes from monetizing the present value of future increases in production (“expansion of bank credit”), not from existing accumulations of savings resulting from prior reductions in consumption.[24] Because financing in this manner does not rely on anything other than the inherent “financeability” of the capital being financed, it is called “pure credit.”[25]
By accepting a contract (a “bill of exchange”) representing the present value of a future stream of profits reasonably expected to result from the future production of marketable goods and services,[26] a commercial or mercantile bank can, through the expansion of bank credit, provide capitalization for all financially feasible capital projects without using existing savings or investment for anything except collateral.[27] “Financial feasibility” refers to the expectation that a capital project will generate sufficient profits in the future to repay the financing and, above the costs of “pure credit” financing, provide a return to meet the owner’s needs for consumer goods and services.[28]
On its acceptance of a contract (bill of exchange), a commercial or mercantile bank issues a promissory note. This promissory note can either be used directly as money (rare these days), or used to back a demand deposit. This process is called “discounting,” as the bill is not accepted at face value, but at the present value of the sum to be delivered on maturity of the promissory note.[29]
A discount is not, strictly speaking, “interest,”[30] although it is often called interest. Moulton, for example, in common with a number of authorities,[31] used the terms interchangeably in some instances, but then carefully distinguished between central bank control of the money supply under the current system by means of changes in the interest rate via open market operations involving government securities, and that achieved by means of changes in the discount rate in the rediscounting of bills of exchange.[32] In contrast, a Kelsonian system would eliminate all artificial controls on either interest or discount rates, terminate or phase out all open market operations involving government securities, and let the market determine the rates of return due to past savers on interest, and the risk and cost associated with creating money by discounting.[33]
“Interest” (from “ownership interest”) represents the just return due to a lender of existing savings for his or her contribution to production. (“Usury” is interest exacted in excess of a just return.) The discount rate represents the degree of risk assumed by the accepting bank and a fee for the bank’s services. To provide for adequate legal tender reserves to be able to meet all demands as they clear or come due, a commercial or mercantile bank as its principal business accepts and “rediscounts” for newly issued currency or demand deposits the bills of exchange it has accepted (“bankers acceptances”) at a central bank (in the United States under § 13 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended), or sell the bills on the open market to other banks, individuals, or business enterprises.[34]
As the original borrower earns profits on its capital investments (generally represented by newly issued or repurchased equity shares), the borrower redeems the bill by repaying the bank’s promissory note, and the bill is canceled. By providing for financing of new capital in this way, an economy is assured of adequate liquidity for all qualified industrial, commercial and agricultural growth purposes. Kelso’s financial innovation was to stipulate that all new capital formation financed using the “pure credit” techniques described by Moulton should be broadly owned by people who previously did not own a significant capital stake.
Kelso claimed that widespread capital ownership financed with pure credit would restore the functioning of “Say’s Law of Markets.”[35][36] Say’s Law states that people do not purchase marketable goods and services produced by others with “money,” but with what they themselves produce by means of their labor and capital.[37] “Money,” legally defined as anything that can be accepted in settlement of a debt (“everything that can be transferred in commerce”[38] ) is only a symbol of what is being exchanged, the “medium of exchange.” As Kelso explained it,
“Money is not a part of the visible sector of the economy. People do not consume money. Money is not a physical factor of production, but rather a yardstick for measuring economic input, economic outtake and the relative values of the real goods and services of the economic world. Money provides a method of measuring obligations, rights, powers and privileges. It provides a means whereby certain individuals can accumulate claims against others, or against the economy as a whole, or against many economies. It is a system of symbols that many economists substitute for the visible sector and its productive enterprises, goods and services, thereby losing sight of the fact that a monetary system is a part only of the invisible sector of the economy, and that its adequacy can only be measured by its effect upon the visible sector.”[39]

As Norman Kurland observed, “What is clear from this description is that money is a ‘social good,’ an artifact of civilization invented to facilitate economic transactions for the common good. Like any other human tool or technology, this societal tool can be used justly or unjustly. It can be used by those who control it to suppress the natural creativity of the many, or it can be used to achieve economic liberation and prosperity for all affected by the money economy.”[40]
Consequently, as labor becomes less valuable as an input to production in relation to capital as technology advances, people can become capital owners and derive an adequate income from both labor and capital. This can maintain the mass purchasing power essential for sustaining and growing a balanced modern free enterprise economy.[41]

[edit] Background

Kelso and Adler elaborated on the proposals in The Capitalist Manifesto in The New Capitalists in 1961. Kelso later teamed up with political scientist Patricia Hetter Kelso to further explain how capital instruments provide an increasing percentage of the wealth and why capital is narrowly owned in the modern industrial economy.[42] Their analysis predicted that widely distributed capital ownership will create a more balanced economy. Kelso and Hetter proposed new "binary" share holdings which would pay out full net earnings as dividends (with exceptions for research, maintenance and depreciation). These could be obtained on credit by those not possessing savings, with a government-backed insurance scheme to protect the shareholder in the event of loss.
Other binary economists believe that a government-backed insurance scheme is unnecessary. CESJ contends that private sector capital credit insurance and reinsurance would be more efficient and consistent with Kelso’s theory.[43]
Kelso's writings and his attempts to promote them were not well received by academic economists. Milton Friedman said of The Capitalist Manifesto "the book's economics was bad...the interpretation of history, ludicrous; and the policy recommended, dangerous" and recalls a debate where even the moderator Clark Kerr "lost his cool as a moderator and attacked [Kelso's arguments] vigorously".[44] Paul Samuelson, another Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winner, told US Congress that Kelso's theories were a "cranky fad" not accepted by mainstream economists, but Kelso's ideas on promoting wider capital ownership nevertheless significantly influenced the passing of legislation promoting employee ownership.[45]
Before becoming a Nobel Laureate in economics in 1976, Milton Friedman claimed that binary economics is “Marx stood on its [sic] head,” Kelso responded, “Damn right — and what’s wrong with that?”[46] Later, when invited to debate the Kelso ideas with Norman Kurland, without giving any reasons, Friedman claimed the ideas leading to the enactment of the initial ESOP enabling legislation were “an unwise, unsound plan that promises much and cannot conceivably achieve what it promises,” and then declared that discussing the ideas was not “worth the time and effort involved.”[47]

[edit] Aims and Program

The aim of binary economics is to ensure that all individuals have the opportunity to receive income from their own independent capital estate,[48] using interest-free loans issued by a central bank to promote the spread of employee-owned firms.[49] These loans are intended to: halve infrastructure improvement costs, reduce business startup costs, and widen stock ownership.
Some binary economists contend that such interest-free loans would be made by local commercial banks by accepting bills of exchange backed by the present value of the productive assets being acquired, as well as the present value of the future goods and services for repaying the loan. The bank would then package and rediscount the bills at a central bank in exchange for newly issued currency or demand deposits backed by the present value of the growth assets.
Under the Kelso plan, the central bank should not extend credit directly for the purpose of broadening capital ownership. The central bank should be confined to rediscounting bills accepted by member banks to finance new capital to be broadly owned. Open market operations in government securities would be terminated or phased out.
Consistent with the theory of central banking presented by Henry Thornton,[50] neither central banks nor commercial banks should be permitted to accept “bills of credit,” as these meet the definition of “fictitious bills,” that is, bills not backed by a definable property stake in the present value of marketable goods and services to be produced in the future.[51] A bill of credit is a special constitutional term meaning securities (government debt) offered by governments and backed not by the present value of future productive assets, but by the ability of the government to collect taxes in the future.[52]
In accordance with classic banking theory and practice as articulated by Adam Smith,[53] Henry Thornton,[54] Jean-Baptiste Say,[55] John Fullarton,[56] James Gilbart,[57] Harold Moulton,[58] and others, no money should be created through the expansion of commercial bank credit, or by central bank rediscounting or open market operations to monetize government debt, to finance investment in speculative or risky securities, or for any project that is not reasonably expected to generate sufficient profits to pay for its own financing within a reasonable period of time. Article I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits the states from emitting bills of credit (“creating money”), while the power to emit bills of credit was removed from the enumerated powers of Congress.[59]
To ensure that the money supply is "elastic" (i.e., expands and contracts with the demands of the economy), asset-backed, and created in ways that make it possible for people who currently own no capital to become capital owners, CESJ proposes a “two-tier credit system.”[60] The first tier would be the market-determined rate of interest charged on all loans extended out of existing accumulations of savings. This would be for all loans for consumption, government spending, speculation, and new capital formation sufficiently risky to be termed speculative. The second tier would be the discount rate applied to bills of exchange accepted to finance broadly owned new capital formation. While the proposal was formerly called the “two-tier interest rate,” the term “two-tier credit system” more accurately reflects the differing costs of money for encouraging broadened ownership of productive assets to the more conventional types of loans based on existing accumulations of savings for non-productive or ownership-concentrating purposes.[61]
Binary economics is hard to place on the left-right spectrum.[62] It has variously been characterized as an extreme right-wing ideology and as extremely left-wing by its critics.[63][64] The ‘binary’ (in ‘binary economics’) means ‘composed of two’ because it suffices to view the physical factors of production as being but two (labor and capital which includes land) and only two ways of genuinely earning a living − by labor and by productive capital ownership. Humans are usually considered as owning their labor, but not necessarily the other productive factor – capital.[65]
Binary economists claim that what distinguishes binary economics from socialism is its recognition that private property and profits, if democratically accessible, would enable all citizens to gain direct economic power. Consistent with Daniel Webster’s dictum that “power naturally and necessarily follows property,”[66] this would make government economically dependent on the citizens. It would, they claim, also reduce pressures for redistributing income, thereby checking what they view as the potential dangers of concentrated power of government.
While binary economists support such goals of political conservatives as free markets, private property and limited economic power of government, they disagree with the idea that free markets alone are sufficient for a just market economy. They claim that the belief that the free market alone is sufficient is tantamount to being blind or morally indifferent to long-standing legal and institutional barriers that inhibit or prevent the exercise of what they believe is the fundamental human right of every person to become a capital owner.[67]
Some binary economists believe that the difficulty in classifying binary economics is due to its adherence to the principles of the British Banking School of finance. In contrast, mainstream schools of economics adhere to the principles of the British Currency School of finance. The British Banking School accepts the validity of Say’s Law of Markets and its application in the real bills doctrine.[68] This is the basis for the claim in binary economics that it is possible to finance new capital formation by monetizing the present value of future increases in production.
The British Currency School (into which broad category both Marxism and Keynesian, as well as Monetarist and Austrian economics, falls) rejects or redefines Say’s Law of Markets, and rejects the real bills doctrine. This is the basis for the claim by Keynesians, Monetarist/Chicago, Austrian and other schools of economics that it is impossible to finance new capital formation except by first restricting consumption and accumulating money savings.
Paradoxically, Keynesian economics is often classed as “Banking School.”[69] This appears to be a result of the confusion between the “metalist” and “anti-metalist” (or “bullionist” and “anti-bullionist”) controversy, and the Banking School and Currency School debate.[70] Categorizing Keynes as “Currency School” is not, according to CESJ's Michael D. Greaney, tenable on at least four counts:
  • Keynes rejected the “banking system” as “the worst of all conceivable systems.”[71]
  • Keynes preferred a modified “currency system.”[72]
  • Keynes rejected Say’s Law of Markets, the theoretical foundation of the banking principle.[73]
  • Keynes evidenced confusion between privately issued “real” bills of exchange, and government-emitted “fictitious” bills of credit.[74] This is also reflected in Keynes’s acceptance of the “chartalism” of Georg Friedrich Knapp.[75]
It is therefore correct to group Keynesianism with the Currency School.[76]
Binary economics is partly based on belief that society has an absolute duty to ensure that all humans have equal opportunity to earn from both their labor and their capital ownership to pay for their own consumption needs for good health, housing, education and an independent income, as well as a responsibility to protect the environment for its own sake. The interest-free loans proposed by binary economics are compatible with the traditional opposition of the Abrahamic religions to usury.[77]
Some binary economists claim that society has no such duty to provide individual goods directly, except in extreme cases. Labeling it “needism,” Kelso called the principle of distribution based on need legitimate for charity, but not as the basis of a truly just and free market economic system.[78] The State’s role is to care for the common good, i.e., provide and maintain an environment within which people are able to meet their own needs through their own earnings, i.e., equality of opportunity. Only as an expedient in cases of extreme need or in an emergency is the State justified in providing directly for people’s individual needs as a temporary measure.
Proponents[79] of binary economics claim that their system contains no expropriation of wealth, and much less redistribution will be necessary. They argue that it cannot cause inflation and is of particular importance as more of the physical contribution to production is automated.[80] and that the Binary economics paradigm[81] is particularly helpful in addressing the issue of why developing countries languish.[82] Advocates[77] contend that implementing their system will lessen national debt and encourage national unity. They believe binary economics could create a balanced and sustainable growth, that is, a stable economy.

[edit] Productiveness vs. Productivity

Binary productiveness is distinctly different from the conventional economic concept of productivity.[83] Binary productiveness attempts to quantify the proportion of output contributed by total labor input and total capital input respectively,[84] Adding capital inputs to a production process increases labor productivity, but binary economic theory argues that it decreases labor productiveness (i.e. the proportion of the total output with the support of both labor and capital that the labor inputs could have produced alone). For example, if the invention of a shovel allows a laborer to dig a hole in quarter of the time it would take him without the spade, binary economists would consider 75% of the "productiveness" to come from the shovel and only 25% from the laborer.
Studies have shown that productive capital accounts for nearly 90% of productivity growth in today’s advanced economies.[85] Logically, then, balanced growth in a market economy depends on incomes distributed through widespread ownership of capital.[86] The technological sources of economic growth would then be linked automatically by free market forces to the ownership-based consumption incomes needed to purchase the goods and services produced.[87]
Some binary economists believe that measuring precisely the relative physical contributions of labor and capital — Kelso’s two interdependent factors of production — is, to all intents and purposes, impossible. Given that in a truly free market goods and services are priced in accordance with their real value (i.e., their utility to the purchaser), CESJ contends that the relative contributions of labor and capital could be determined by comparing the price of each in a truly free market, assuming there is no coercion by government or by private monopolies over the prices of marketable goods and services or costs of labor or other inputs to the productive process and all citizens have equal opportunity to earn profits through their capital ownership shares.
Roth criticized the shovel example on the basis that the shovel is not a factor of production independent of human capital because somebody invented it, and the shovel cannot act independently: the physical productiveness of the shovel before labor is added to it is zero.[88][89] Binary economics suggests that even if gains in productiveness result from human innovation they ought to accrue only to those that invest in capital instruments utilizing that innovation,[90] in this case the owner of the shovel. Although it may be impossible to dig the hole without some human labor, the binary theory of productiveness maintains the contribution of that physical labor can be calculated simply by calculating the productivity increase resulting from adding capital, and in this case valued at only 25% of the total cost of production.
The analysis of R. Buckminster Fuller supports Kelso’s contention that capital, not labor, is responsible for the bulk of production in an advanced industrial economy. As Fuller stated in Utopia or Oblivion, “Take from all of today’s industrial nations all their industrial machinery and all their energy-distributing networks, and leave them all their ideologies, all their political leaders, and all their political organizations and I can tell you that within six months two billion people will die of starvation.”[91]
Kelso used the concept of productiveness to support his theory of distributive justice, arguing that as capital increasingly substitutes for labor..."workers can legitimately claim from their aggregate labor only a decreasing percentage of total output",[92] implying they would need to acquire capital holdings to maintain their level of income. In the The Capitalist Manifesto, Kelso boldly asserted:
"It is, if anything an underestimation rather than an exaggeration to say that the aggregate physical contribution to the production of the wealth of the workers in the United States today accounts for less than 10 percent of the wealth produced, and that the contribution by the owners of capital instruments, through their physical instruments, accounts in physical terms for more than 90 percent of the wealth produced" [93]
Whilst the increased importance of capital as a factor of production following the Industrial Revolution has long been accepted even by those believing economic value derives from labor such as Marx,[94] Kelso's figures suggesting that value was created almost entirely by capital were dismissed by academic economists like Paul Samuelson.[45] Samuelson asserted that Kelso's had not used any econometric analysis to arrive at his figures, which completely contradicted economists' empirical findings on the contribution of labor. The Capitalist Manifesto did not provide detailed calculations to support Kelso's claim, although a footnote[93] suggested that it was based on a simple comparison with 1850s labor productivity figures.
The work of Harold Moulton also tends to substantiate Kelso’s claim. Moulton noted that the number of jobs in the United States involving direct manufacturing declined greatly between 1919 and 1929, at a time when the number of jobs overall increased.[95] According to Moulton, the new jobs were created in administration, sales and support, tasks that are today being carried out by robots, artificial intelligence systems, and computers.[96]

[edit] Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and other plans

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are compatible with some of the principles of binary economics.[97] These stem originally from Louis Kelso & Patricia Hetter Kelso (1967)Two-Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality; the founding of Kelso & Company in 1970; and then from conversations in the early 1970s between Louis Kelso, Norman Kurland (Center for Economic and Social Justice), Senator Russell Long of Louisiana (Chairman, USA Senate Finance Committee, 1966 - 1981) and Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska. There are about 11,500 ESOPs in the USA today covering 11 million employees in closely held companies.
Other than Abraham Lincoln’s 1862 Homestead Act, an initiative that, according to Frederick Jackson Turner, effectively ended by 1893, the ESOP is generally considered the first step — limited to workers in productive private sector companies — toward democratization of the right of access to the means to acquire and own productive capital, financed with interest-free, self-liquidating capital credit.

[edit] Uses of central bank-issued interest-free loans

Binary economics proposes that central bank-issued interest-free loans should be administered by the banking system for the development and spreading of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity, particularly new capacity, as well as for environmental and public capital. While no interest would be charged, there would be an administrative cost as well as collateralization or capital credit insurance.[98]
Some binary economists believe that central banks should be extremely limited in their role, and be confined to rediscounting bills of exchange accepted by member banks and terminate open market operations involving government securities. In this view, there should be no direct central bank financing of private or public sector capital or deficits. All qualified loans for new capital formation should go through a competitive commercial banking system.
Proponents of binary economics are dissatisfied with fractional reserve banking, arguing that it "creates new money out of nothing".[99] The supply of interest-free loans would place in circumstances of a move (over time) towards banks maintaining reserves equal to 100% of their deposits; in practice, the large-scale interest-free lending desired by binary economics is compatible with the widespread reduction in money supply that would be caused by increased reserve requirements only if the government takes over the banks' role in credit creation.
Some binary economists contend that fractional reserve banking, which once served a useful purpose when convertibility of a paper currency into specie (gold and silver) was desirable to give the public confidence in the money supply, is no longer necessary. Reserves do not back the demand deposits of commercial or central banks, but are used to satisfy the demand for convertibility of the bank’s promissory notes into legal tender or to redeem negotiable instruments presented for payment. This ensures that a paper currency convertible into specie fluctuates in value just as if the currency were all metallic.[100]
That being the case, a fractional reserve requirement artificially limits the amount of bills a commercial bank can accept. This limits the rate of capital growth in the economy. A fractional reserve requirement is therefore unnecessary in an economy in which the legal tender currency consists of a private sector asset-backed paper currency issued or authorized by the central bank and the currency is not convertible into specie.[101] By rediscounting all qualified acceptances at the central bank, a commercial bank can have 100% reserves of legal tender currency or the equivalent in central bank demand deposits. The banking system would thereby be able to meet immediately any conceivable demand put on its liquidity.[102]
The dangers of “over-banking” or “over-trading” expressed by adherents of the British Currency School remain a legitimate concern. Both terms refer to the practice of issuing promissory notes in greater amount than the actual present value of bills of exchange accepted. This results in an overexpansion of bank credit.[103] In the 18th and 19th centuries these terms were used to refer to the fears that commercial and mercantile banks would, as a matter of course, issue banknotes or create demand deposits in excess of the present value of existing and future marketable goods and services conveyed by accepting mortgages and bills of exchange, or issue banknotes or create demand deposits in accepting “fictitious bills,” that is, bills of exchange issued by someone without ownership of the present value ostensibly being conveyed.
The response of such British Banking School adherents as Henry Thornton, Jean-Baptiste Say, James Gilbart and John Fullarton was to argue that the natural caution and prudence of bankers and the demands of trade would preclude such practices. Some binary economists claim that the added levels of scrutiny provided by educated consumers, investment analysts, and capital credit insurers and reinsurers, along with the separation of function of financial services to establish a system of adequate internal controls within the financial services industry (e.g., separation of commercial from investment banking, and separation of banking from insurance) would establish the necessary degree of oversight without the artificial constraints imposed by fractional reserve banking, excessive government regulation, or outright government control.

[edit] Investments eligible for interest-free loans

[edit] Public capital investment

Interest-free loans for public capital have been successfully used in Canada, New Zealand and Guernsey. Malaysia is today believed to be experimenting with them.[104]
Some binary economists reject the use of interest-free loans for public capital, arguing that whatever is owned by the State can and should be owned jointly by all citizens and leased to users, including the State. Admittedly, such financing was used successfully in a number of instances for self-liquidating capital such as the Guernsey Market House. The Guernsey Market House was a project initiated, financed, owned and operated by the “States of Guernsey,” the legislature of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, in the early 19th century. State ownership, however, violates the principle of “subsidiarity.” In this context, subsidiarity is the principle that the State should exercise only a limited role in the economy, confining itself to providing equality of opportunity and policing abuses. State ownership of productive capital (including infrastructure) violates the right to private property, discourages productive activity, and places unnecessary power in the State, which would better be extended to all citizens directly.
After 1949 central bank loans were a major factor in the Taiwanese Land to the Tiller program which spread land ownership from the few to the many. This was done without causing inflation and was an overall binary solution because, in various ways the money went into the spreading of both productive and consuming capacity.[105] (One way was by financing the buyout with industrial bonds, thus giving capital to small industries to provide things for the newly empowered farmers to purchase.)
Some binary economists have observed that direct central bank financing or State-run programs that require direct government action tend to be less politically viable than programs with a more democratic orientation. The proposal William Thomas Thornton presented in A Plea for Peasant Proprietors in 1848 relied on government financing and the use of existing savings.[106] It was not adopted despite what appeared to be the program’s obvious benefits. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln’s 1862 Homestead Act did not require active government participation once a homesteader registered his or her claim, or the use of past savings.
CESJ and the Coalition for Capital Homesteading[107] propose a “Capital Homestead Act” that it claims is an expansion of Lincoln’s concept of universal citizen access to ownership opportunities from land to all forms of capital. Capital Homesteading would require the State to restructure society’s monetary and tax systems (including reforming the inheritance tax to shift the tax burden from the estate to the recipient) to allow individuals the opportunity to obtain capital credit on a democratic basis, and repay the financing with the full stream of profits realized from the capital itself, but otherwise limit the role of the State to providing a level playing field, policing abuses, enforcing laws, preventing monopolies, and so on.

[edit] Private capital investment

Ownership of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity, particularly new capacity, can be spread by the use of central bank-issued interest-free loans.[108] Interest-free loans should be allowed for private capital investment IF such investment creates new owners of capital and is part of national policy to enable all individuals, over time, on market principles, to become owners of substantial amounts of productive, income-producing capital.[109] By using central bank-issued interest-free loans, a large corporation would get cheap money as long as new binary shareholders are created.
It is proposed that all large corporations should have to pay out all their earnings all the time (with exception of reserves for maintenance, depreciation, repair and research). Large corporations will then have the option of obtaining interest-free loans on condition that they help to spread ownership. Medium-sized corporations (which would not be subject to the full pay out provision) will be able to have interest-free loans if they spread ownership.
Some binary economists maintain that it would be more politically feasible to provide a positive incentive instead of a negative mandate to pay out all profits as dividends. This could be done by making dividends tax deductible at the corporate level, but recognized as ordinary income when available for consumption at the individual level. Only new shares issued for a program of expanded capital ownership should carry a required “full payout” feature and the vote; there should be no mandatory participation.
Dividends and inflation-indexed capital gains would be taxed as ordinary income unless used to make payments for acquiring tax-sheltered qualified securities. Existing shares would qualify if the issuing corporation permitted the shares to be voted and paid out all earnings attributable to the shares.
Instead of corporations obtaining direct loans from the central bank or commercial or mercantile banks, corporations would sell new full dividend payout shares with these features. Individuals would obtain loans from commercial banks to purchase the shares, while the commercial banks would bundle the loans and rediscount the paper at the central bank. The shares would be deposited in a tax-sheltered accumulation vehicle, a “Capital Homestead Account,” similar to the “Individual Retirement Account” (IRA) under U.S. Law.
As profits were paid out in the form of dividends, they would first be used to repay the acquisition loan(s) on the shares. Distributions of shares from tax-sheltered vehicles and any excess over what would be required for debt service payments would be paid out to the individual, and taxed as regular income.
The tax system should, in their opinion, be reformed to levy a single rate of taxation on all personal income from whatever source derived above an exemption sufficient to meet ordinary living expenses, including food, clothing, housing, education, and healthcare. Those whose labor or capital income falls below the level of the exemption should be provided with vouchers for whatever goods and services they require based on need. Inheritance taxes should be reformed so that the tax burden falls on the recipient rather than the estate, with a provision for tax deferral in the event the inheritance is used to purchase capital assets through a tax-sheltered “Capital Homestead” accumulation vehicle.

[edit] Critiques of Binary Economics

There are four primary criticisms of binary economics:
• The impossibility of financing widespread capital ownership without some form of redistribution,
• The presumed inability of most people to handle the risks associated with capital ownership.
• The anticipation of resistance to change from those in power, and
• The issue of productiveness v. productivity.

[edit] Widespread Capital Ownership without Savings

Kelso and Adler referred to as “the slavery of savings” the belief in all conventional schools of economics that it is impossible to finance new capital formation except by cutting consumption and accumulating money savings. Technically, this is a reference to existing savings accumulated by refraining from consumption, not “future savings” generated from future increases in production. Binary economics agrees that saving in some form is necessary to finance new capital formation.
The most serious problem that Kelso and Adler saw with reliance on past savings to finance new capital formation is that it generally restricts the ability to own new capital to those who already own capital and can thus afford to refrain from consuming all of their income without hardship. Given the disproved assumption that past savings is the only source of capital financing, all conventional schools of economic seem to agree that the only way for people who do not already own capital to become capital owners is to redistribute capital belonging to others after direct confiscation, or indirectly through the tax system or inflation, e.g., “So far as I know, everyone agrees in meaning by Saving the excess of income over what is spent on consumption.”[110]
In The Formation of Capital, Moulton disproved the belief that saving consists exclusively of reductions in current consumption.[111] Kelso and Adler contended that using future savings instead of past savings to finance new capital formation allows non-owners to become owners without prejudice to existing owners.

[edit] Capacity for Capital Ownership

A number of economists and other authorities, most notably Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson, have asserted that ordinary people are incapable of being capital owners, largely due to the level of risk involved. In testimony before the Congress on June 8, 1972, in reference to a proposal to implement the “Second Income Plan” in the economically distressed territory of Puerto Rico, Samuelson declared “[I]t is a first principle of sound finance that families at low income level[s] must not invest so heavily as more affluent families in venture equities.”[112]
Contradicting Samuelson, financial historian Benjamin Anderson stated that the first principle of commercial banking — practical finance — is to know the difference between a mortgage (a financial instrument based on existing accumulations of savings, i.e., past reductions in consumption) and a bill of exchange (a financial instrument based on the present value of future savings, i.e., future increases in production).[113] Financing using only existing savings, i.e., mortgage financing, is, as Kelso and Adler would agree, too risky for people who cannot afford to lose what little they have. Financing with future savings using bills of exchange based on what is expected to be produced in the future, and collateralizing with capital credit insurance and reinsurance, is, however, to all intents and purposes “risk free,” nullifying the objections of Samuelson and others that ownership is too risky for the non-rich.
Kelso and Adler also argued that, having the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, every human being, regardless of his or her current economic status, is entitled to exercise those rights.[114] This is a matter of justice, as well as recognizing that every human being is as fully human as all other human beings, and thus has the same inherent capacity to own capital as anyone else. To deny anyone the right to own capital on the same terms as anyone else (i.e., making “conditional” an inalienable right such as life, liberty or property) is to relegate them to a “subhuman” status.[115] Given that the capital being financed is feasible, (i.e., can generate sufficient income to pay for its own acquisition), present levels of income are irrelevant if new capital formation is financed using future savings and collateralized with insurance.

[edit] Political Viability

Some authorities admit the soundness of the financing techniques and the social necessity of widespread capital ownership, but contend that private interests or government either will not see the benefits, or will prevent the adoption of a program designed to broaden the base of capital ownership out of selfishness and greed. As Norman Kurland of the Center for Economic and Social Justice responded,
“The adoption of the initial enabling ESOP legislation in the United States in the early 1970s and the rapid spread of the technology to other countries refutes this contention. Louisiana Senator Russell Long had previously opposed the ESOP, but became its champion in the Congress after meeting with Louis Kelso and Norman Kurland.”[116]
The bipartisan Presidential Task Force on Project Economic Justice, enacted in 1985 by Congress with the support of President Ronald Reagan, illustrates the popular appeal of the Kelso ideas once an effective political strategy is followed.[117] Hubert H. Humphrey also expressed a more positive view:
“[C]apital, and the question of who owns it and therefore reaps the benefit of its productiveness, is an extremely important issue that is complementary to the issue of full employment. . . . I see these as twin pillars of our economy: Full employment of our labor resources and widespread ownership of our capital resources. Such twin pillars would go a long way in providing a firm underlying support for future economic growth that would be equitably shared.”[118]
The political ballot is now extended to all citizens as a fundamental human right. Section 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to own property individually as well as in association with others. CESJ contends that ownership is essential for an effective political democracy. As “power naturally and necessarily follows property,”[119] access to the political ballot can only be meaningful if political democracy is not endangered by those who control money and monopolize economic power.
Making every citizen an owner would reduce collaboration between politicians and the tiny elite who control money power. The tiny fraction of humanity that today owns and controls the bulk of productive capital in the world cannot on moral or political grounds deny to others the access to private property in capital that the elite currently enjoys. By financing new capital with future savings instead of past savings, the perceived necessity for redistribution to achieve widespread capital ownership would be eliminated, and the property rights of the “haves” would be protected under Capital Homesteading.

[edit] Kelso's Critique of "Productivity"

Consistent with the view that all production is due ultimately to labor, and that capital consists of “congealed labor,” the standard measure of productivity is defined by socialist and capitalist schools alike as “output divided by labor hours.” Carried to its logical conclusion, this would mean that workers, being responsible for the whole of production, are due everything above the cost of the capital that represents the capital owner’s “congealed labor.” Anything in addition to a return of the cost of capital to the owner of capital represents, in the Marxist analysis, “surplus value” stolen from workers and consumers.
This view is sometimes ameliorated by granting the entrepreneurial capital owner, that is, the owner who provides management, guidance, and vision, a higher value for the special type of labor he or she supplies, and in allowing the non-working owner a return in excess of the cost of capital to encourage investors with accumulated savings to risk them in a capital project.
Kelso responded by pointing out that, as technology advances, human labor as an input to mechanical production declines at an accelerating rate, and potentially (with full automation) disappear altogether.[120] The measure of productivity also does not take into account the fact that, e.g., digging a hole by hand, and digging a hole using a shovel are two different tasks, and must be evaluated differently. Thus, given that the task is to dig a hole with a shovel, the criticism made that a shovel is useless without the human input (thus allegedly proving that human labor is responsible for all production) fails to take into account the fact that a human being without a shovel is equally useless for the task.
Consequently, Kelso in effect claimed that capital and labor are two interdependent variables in the same production equation, e.g., digging a hole with a shovel. One cannot do without the other. Changing the amount of either variable can, depending on the equation, change the amount of output, but not the equation. Changing the equation involves changing not the amount of either variable, but the variables themselves.
Thus, adding additional units of labor (workers) and additional units of capital (shovels) will, all other things being equal, increase output, where adding workers without shovels or shovels without workers will only increase costs without increasing output. Improving the workers or improving capital are the only options to increase output. Since basic human capacities have not changed in recorded history, and since capital has been advancing exponentially during the same period, it is logical to assume that all increases in output are due not to improved labor, but to improved capital. A backhoe would dig holes at a much faster rate with one human operator than hundreds of workers with shovels (or one backhoe operated by hundreds of drivers), changing the basic equation.
According to Kelso this becomes obvious when considering the case of elevators that used to require operators, but which now can be operated automatically by the passenger. Productivity — output — of the elevator operator measured in terms of output divided by labor hours has become an irrational number (i.e., a number divided by zero) with the removal of the operator. Output, however, has not become irrational, but has stayed exactly the same, assuming that the same passengers continue to ride the elevator to the same floors the same number of times each day.
Kelso contended that replacing the standard measure of productivity with the concept of productiveness (i.e., relative contributions of labor and capital to the production of specific goods and services) allows for a more rational analysis. In the case of the automated elevator, the labor contribution has declined to zero, while the contribution of capital has reached 100%. (The minimal effort involved in the passengers pushing buttons to select floors may be discounted on two counts. One, the effort involved is immaterial relative to the output obtained, and, two, the passengers do not receive a wage for pushing the button and cannot thus be considered factors of production.)
Thus, in binary economics, capital must be regarded as an independent as well as generally interdependent — though not necessarily autonomous — factor of production. The owner of the labor or capital is due a return based on the relative market-determined value of the contribution that his or her labor or capital makes to production.

[edit] References

  1. ^ "The Capitalist Manifesto". Retrieved 2011-02-20.
  2. ^ "CESJ Website". Retrieved November 14, 2012.
  3. ^ Kelso, Louis O., and Hetter, Patricia, Two-Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality. New York: Random House, 1967.
  4. ^ "Capital". "CESJ Glossary".
  5. ^ Kurland, Norman. "CESJ's Vision for a New Millennium". Center for Economic and Social Justice. Retrieved November 14, 2012.
  6. ^ Roy Madron & John Jopling (2003) Gaian Democracies
  7. ^ Kelso, Louis O., and Adler, Mortimer J., The Capitalist Manifesto. New York: Random House, 1958, 67-69.
  8. ^ Ibid., ix.
  9. ^
  10. ^ Ricardo, David, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), I.i.
  11. ^ Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations (1776),
  12. ^ Kurland, Norman G., “The Just Third Way: Basic Principles of Economic and Social Justice,” Fifth Annual Conference of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), Wyndham Washington Hotel, Washington, D.C., May 28-29, 2004,, accessed November 1, 2012
  13. ^ Babbage, Charles, On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. London: Charles Knight, 1835, 6.
  14. ^ Briefs, Goetz, The Proletariat: A Challenge to Western Civilization. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1937, 261-267.
  15. ^ Kelso, Louis O., and Hetter, Patricia, Two-Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality. New York: Random House, 1967, 18-24.
  16. ^ Ibid., 12-17.
  17. ^ Walter P. Reuther, Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on the President’s Economic Report, February 20, 1967.
  18. ^ Kelso and Hetter, Two-Factor Theory, op. cit., 12-17.
  19. ^ Staff, “If the Machines Wants Our Jobs Let’s Buy It,” editorial, Life magazine, August 14, 1964.
  20. ^ Michael Rowbotham (1998) The Grip of Death. James Gibb Stuart (1983) The Money Bomb.
  21. ^ Rodney Shakespeare (2007) op. cit.
  22. ^ Kurland, Norman G., “A New Look at Prices and Money: The Kelsonian Binary Model for Achieving Rapid Growth Without Inflation,” The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30 (2001) 495-515.
  23. ^ Moulton, Harold G. (1935). The Formation of Capital. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  24. ^ Moulton, Harold G. (1935). The Formation of Capital. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. pp. 77-84.
  25. ^ Kurland, Norman G. (2004). Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen. Arlington, Virginia: Economic Justice Media. pp. 123. ISBN 0-944997-00-7.
  26. ^ Moulton, Harold G. (1938). Financial Organization and the Economic System. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.. pp. 112-113.
  27. ^ Moulton, Harold G. (1935). The Formation of Capital. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. pp. loc. cit..
  28. ^ Moulton, Harold G. (1935). The Formation of Capital. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. pp. 28-29.
  29. ^ Gilbart, James William (1851). A Practical Treatise on Banking. New York: George P. Putnam. pp. 19-21.
  30. ^ Van Coppenolle, Peter M.. "Rejoinder: The Debasement Puzzle of the Middle Ages". White Paper for the New Austrian School of Economics. Pintax. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  31. ^ Moulton, Harold G. (1938). Financial Organization and the Economic System. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.. pp. 184.
  32. ^ Moulton, Harold G. (1930). The Financial Organization of Society. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. pp. 401-402.
  33. ^ Kurland, Norman G. (2001). "A New Look at Prices and Money". The Journal of Socio-Economics 30.
  34. ^ Gilbart, James William (1851). A Practical Treatise on Banking. 1851: George P. Putnam. pp. 20.
  35. ^ Kurland, Norman G. (2001). "A New Look at Prices and Money". The Journal of Socio-Economics 30: loc. cit..
  36. ^ Ashford, Robert H. A.; Shakespeare, Rodney (1999). Binary Economics: The New Paradigm. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. pp. 100-101, 275-278, 286-296. ISBN 0-7618-1321-7.
  37. ^ Say, Jean-Baptiste (1821). Letters to Mr. Malthus on Several Subjects of Political Economy. London: Sherwood, Neely, and Jones. pp. 2-3.
  38. ^ "Money" (1951). Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co..
  39. ^ Kelso and Hetter, Two-Factor Theory, op. cit., 54.
  40. ^ Kurland, “A New Look at Prices and Money,” op. cit.
  41. ^ Moulton, Harold G. (1935). The Formation of Capital. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. pp. 37-74.
  42. ^ Louis Kelso & Patricia Hetter Kelso (1986 & 1991) Democracy and Economic Power - Extending the ESOP Revolution through Binary Economics
  43. ^ Kurland, Norman G. (2004). Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen. Arlington, Virginia: Economic Justice Media. pp. 40, 94, 119, 181. ISBN 0-944997-00-7.
  44. ^ Friedman, Milton & Friedman, Rose D. Two Lucky People: A memoir, The University of Chicago Press, p.275
  45. ^ a b D'Art, Darryl (1992) Economic democracy and financial participation: a comparative study, Routledge p.96
  46. ^ "The Man Who Would Make Everybody Richer". Time magazine. June 29, 1970..
  47. ^ Milton Friedman letter to Norman G. Kurland, 01/26/71.
  48. ^ Robert Ashford & Rodney Shakespeare (1999) Binary Economics – the new paradigm
  49. ^ Rodney Shakespeare (2007) The Modern Universal Paradigm.
  50. ^ Thornton, Henry, An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain (1802). London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1939.
  51. ^ Ibid., 85-89.
  52. ^ “Bill of Credit,” Black’s Law Dictionary, op. cit.
  53. ^ Smith, The Wealth of Nations, op. cit., I.iv, II.ii.
  54. ^ Thornton, Paper Credit of Great Britain, op. cit.
  55. ^ Say, Jean-Baptiste, “Of Banks of Circulation or Discount, and of Banknotes, or Convertible Paper,” A Treatise on Political Economy. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Claxton, Remsen and Haffelfinger, 1880.
  56. ^ Fullarton, John, On the Regulation of the Currencies of the Bank of England. London: John Murray, 1845.
  57. ^ Gilbart, A Practical Treatise on Banking, op. cit.
  58. ^ Moulton, The Financial Organization of Society, op. cit., 4-54, 161-269.
  59. ^ Royall, William L., Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1880, 3-4.
  60. ^ Kurland, “Prices and Money,” op. cit., 500-501; Kurland, Norman G., “The Federal Reserve Discount Window,” The Journal of Employee Ownership, Law and Finance, Vol. X, No. 1, Winter 1998.
  61. ^ Ibid.
  62. ^ Robert Ashford (1990) The Binary Economics of Louis Kelso: the Promise of Universal Capitalism (Rutgers Law Journal, vol. 22 No.1. Fall, 1990).
  63. ^ Robert Ashford & Rodney Shakespeare (1999) op. cit;
  64. ^ Time Magazine, June 29, 1970.
  65. ^ Louis Kelso & Patricia Hetter Kelso (1967) Two-Factor Theory: the Economics of Reality.
  66. ^ Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820.
  67. ^ Kurland, et al. Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen, op. cit., 11-32.
  68. ^ Say, Jean-Baptiste, “Of Banks of Circulation or Discount, and of Banknotes, or Convertible Paper,” A Treatise on Political Economy. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Claxton, Remsen and Haffelfinger, 1880.
  69. ^ Kindleberger, Charles P., Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises. New York: Basic Books, 1989, 60-65.
  70. ^ Schumpeter, Joseph A., History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954, 688-750.
  71. ^ Keynes, A Treatise on Money, Volume I. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930, 170.
  72. ^ Ibid., 151-170.
  73. ^ Keynes, General Theory, op. cit., I.3.i.
  74. ^ Keynes A Treatise on Money, Volume I, op. cit., 4.
  75. ^ Ibid., vide Knapp, Georg Friedrich, The State Theory of Money. London: Macmillan and Co., 1924.
  76. ^ Greaney, Michael D., The Restoration of Property: A Reexamination of a Natural Right. Arlington, Virginia: Economic Justice Media, 2012, 73-84.
  77. ^ a b Rodney Shakespeare & Peter Challen (2002) Seven Steps to Justice.
  78. ^ Kelso and Hetter, Two-Factor Theory, op. cit., 12-24.
  79. ^ Norman Kurland, Dawn Brohawn & Michael Greaney (2004)Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen: A Just Free Market Solution for Saving Social Security.
  80. ^ James S. Albus (1976) Peoples' Capitalism - The Economics of The Robot Revolution.
  81. ^ Sofyan Syafri Harahap (2005), Accounting Crisis. William Christensen Search for a Universal Paradigm: Making Justice Live For All International Conference on Universal Paradigm of Socio-Scientific Reasoning, Asian University of Bangladesh, 2005.
  82. ^ A notable lecture on this matter was given by Ing. B.J Habibie (former President, The Republic of Indonesia) at the international conference Islamic Economics and Banking in the 21st Century, Jakarta, Indonesia, November, 2005. The former President, a successful aircraft engineer, well understands the potential of technology to create wealth. See also Thoby Mutis (1995) Pendekatan Ekonomi Pengetahuan dalam Manajemen Kodedeterminass.
  83. ^ Mark Douglas Reiners The Binary Alternative and the Future of Capitalism available at Center for Economic and Social Justice.
  84. ^ Robert Ashford Louis Kelso’s Binary Economy (The Journal of Socio-Economics, vol.25, 1996).
  85. ^ Kendrick, John W., “Productivity Trends and Recent Slowdown: Historical Perspective, Causal Factors, and Policy Options,” Contemporary Economic Problems, Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1979; Solow, R. M., in Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, pp. 89-104, Arrow, K. J., Karlin, S., and Suppes, P., eds., Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960; Denison, Edward, “Accounting for United States Economic Growth: 1929-69,” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1974, and Accounting for Slower Economic Growth: The United States in the 1970s, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1979.
  86. ^ Ashford and Shakespeare, Binary Economics, op. cit., 37-41, 273-306, 320-325.
  87. ^ Kurland, “A New Look at Prices and Money,” op. cit., 497.
  88. ^ Timothy D. Terrell Binary Economics: Paradigm Shift Or Cluster of Errors? Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  89. ^ Timothy P. Roth, (1996) A Supply-Sider’s (Sympathetic) View of Binary Economics, Journal of Socio-Economics 25 (1) pp. 58–59.
  90. ^ Kelso, Louis (1958) The Capitalist Manifesto, Random House, p.87
  91. ^ Fuller, R. Buckminster, Utopia or Oblivion: The Prospects for Humanity. New York: The Overlook Press, 1969, 157.
  92. ^ Kelso, Louis (1958) The Capitalist Manifesto, Random House, p.110-11
  93. ^ a b Kelso, Louis (1958) The Capitalist Manifesto, Random House, p.53
  94. ^ Louis Kelso Karl Marx: The Almost Capitalist (American Bar Association Journal, March, 1957).
  95. ^ Moulton, Harold G., The Recovery Problem in the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1936, 153-154.
  96. ^ Kurzweil, Raymond, The Age of the Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. London: Penguin Books, 2000.
  97. ^ William Greider (1997) One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism.
  98. ^ Norman Kurland (1998) The Federal Reserve Discount Window —
  99. ^ John Tomlinson (1993) Honest Money. Joseph Huber & James Robertson Creating New Money. Peter Selby (1997) Grace and Mortgage.
  100. ^ Fullarton, Regulation of Currencies, op. cit., 11-27.
  101. ^ Moulton, Financial Organization and the Economic System, op. cit., 499-500, 502-503.
  102. ^ Kurland, Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen, op. cit., 53, 121.
  103. ^ Macleod, Henry Dunning, “A History of Banking in Great Britain,” History of Banking in All the Leading Nations, Volume II. New York: The Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, 1896, 55.
  104. ^ Rodney Shakespeare & Peter Challen (2002) op. cit.
  105. ^ John Medaille (2007) The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace.
  106. ^ Thornton, William Thomas, A Plea for Peasant Proprietors, With the Outlines of a Plan for Their Establishment in Ireland. Arlington, Virginia: Economic Justice Media, 2011, 177-181.
  107. ^
  108. ^ Shann Turnbull (1975/2000) Democratizing the Wealth of Nations and (2001) The Use of Central Banks to Spread Ownership. Jeff Gates (1999) The Ownership Solution and (2000) Democracy At Risk.
  109. ^ Norman Kurland (2001) Saving Social Security at
  110. ^ Keynes, John Maynard, General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), II.7.i.
  111. ^ Moulton, The Formation of Capital, op. cit., 75-84.
  112. ^ The Congressional Record — Senate, June 8, 1972, S 9053.
  113. ^ Anderson, Benjamin M., Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946. Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1980, 233.
  114. ^ Kelso and Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto, op. cit., 68.
  115. ^ Ibid., 14-15.
  116. ^ Norman G. Kurland, “Dinner at the Madison: Louis Kelso Meets Russell Long,” Owners at Work, Winter 1997/1998.
  117. ^ CESJ, High Road to Economic Justice: Report to the President and the Congress by the Presidential Task Force on Project Economic Justice, October 1986. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Social Justice, 1986. Formed pursuant to 99th Congress 1st Session H. Con. Res. 31.
  118. ^ Hubert H. Humphrey, Letter to The Washington Post, July 20, 1976.
  119. ^ Daniel Webster, Massachusetts Convention of 1820.
  120. ^ Kelso and Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto, op. cit., 33-43.

[edit] Texts

  • Albus, James S.(1976) Peoples’ Capitalism - The Economics of The Robot Revolution.
  • Ashford, Robert & Shakespeare, Rodney (1999) Binary Economics - the new paradigm.
  • Ashford, Robert Louis Kelso’s Binary Economy (The Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 25, 1996).
  • el-Diwany, Tarek (2003) The Problem With Interest.
  • Gates, Jeff (1999) The Ownership Solution.
  • Gates, Jeff (2000) Democracy At Risk.
  • 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, Columbia University, May, 2006).
  • Kelso, Louis & Kelso, Patricia Hetter (1986 & 1991), Democracy and Economic Power - Extending the ESOP Revolution through Binary Economics.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Schmid, A. Allan,(1984), “Broadening Capital Ownership: The Credit System as a Focus of Power," in Gar Alperovitz and Roger Skurski,eds. American Economic Policy, University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Shakespeare, Rodney & Challen, Peter (2002) Seven Steps to Justice.
  • Shakespeare, Rodney (2007) The Modern Universal Paradigm.
  • Turnbull, Shann (2001) The Use of Central Banks to Spread Ownership.
  • Turnbull, Shann (1975/2000), Democratising the Wealth of Nations.

[edit] External links

No comments:

Post a Comment