Rogues All
In the great search for the source of inflation, politicians and economists have felt at liberty to express all sorts of fanciful conclusions. How refreshing then that Harold Wilson has applied himself to the task. After careful examination he appears to have identified a hitherto rare specimen — the capitalist who pays too much and it is the antics of this benevolent creature which, he thinks, are at the source of the trouble.
We reject, as we have always rejected, the idea of statutory policies based on criminal sanctions against workers who, misguidedly, perhaps short-sightedly, perhaps acting out of fear, went on strike for higher wages than the nation could afford. The Government might need to take reserve powers. It will take the form of a power directed against a recalcitrant employer, a rogue elephant who sought to wreck the policy of the whole community.Times 7th July ’75
The roguery being that these unspecified capitalists may be prepared to pay greater wage increases than the £6 a week Government limit.
It is a pity indeed that these fabulous benefactors have to be checked in this way from gaily distributing their wealth on application; they would say no doubt — as several Labour MPs have recently been saying concerning their own pay increases — that any increase would only represent the “rate for the job.” The catch being that however high the rate for the job, the capitalist assesses it against another rate, the rate of his profit.
Official Swindle
The idea that all mankind can co-operate in producing and distributing the means of life is regarded by some as an unreal proposition. We disagree, but point out that it is not the only “staggering proposal” in existence. The British Medical Association’s Junior Hospital Doctors’ Council had an emergency meeting recently in Leeds to discuss the new 40-hour contract which the doctors have been offered by the Department of Health and Social Security. Their chairman, Dr. David Bell, described the contract as “vicious.” Dr. Angus Ford, chairman of their negotiating committee pin-pointed their objections more precisely when saying:
The Department had introduced the staggering concept that the first units of medical time after 40 hours should not count for payment. From 40 to 56 hours we should, they say, work for nothing.Times 10th July ’75
Now here is an unethical approach to things, surely? Trying to have doctors working for nothing — this really is pulling a fast one. Imagine if this sort of concept was spread even further afield, why — the entire working class would be working some of the time for free, for no-one’s benefit but the employers’. Truly a staggering proposal — but one which makes capitalism tick.
Pay Disparities
Coal miners in the capitalist system which is misleadingly termed “socialism” have recently been in disagreement with one another over the amount of wages each man should receive for his work:
A veteran engineer said that young miners sometimes resented the higher pay given to older men although they did less work. But an older worker said that this was an aspect of socialism and anyway, the senior men were needed for their greater experience.Times 15th July ’75
The newspaper refers to the moves for equalization of pay as “an informal debate going on among the miners.” The disparities in earnings “vary from the equivalent of £8 to £30 a month.” We point out that these figures relate to the total earnings of miners — not to the amounts of difference between them. Recalling the recent push from members of the NUM for the “£100 per week miner” readers may suspect a misprint but this is not the case. The miners referred to, live in that other “socialist” country, China.
All responsible officials insist that the campaign is still at the stage of discussion and no changes in the wage scales are envisaged for the immediate future. There is no extra pay for overtime, but there is strong moral pressure on young workers to do labour voluntarily in their spare time as well as attend political study classes two or three times a week.
The Labour Party must be casting an envious eye at such an apparently well-oiled process of exploitation.
With Planners Like These . . .
We were treated to the Sunday Times Economics Editor, Mr. Malcolm Crawford, revealing “new moves to allow better economic forecasting” on 20th July. The measures proposed arose from dissatisfaction at the “sharp stops and goes, the blind lurches of policy, of past years,” and are aimed at removing them. Towards this elusive end several MPs have tabled three amendments to the Industry Bill (two of which have been accepted by the Treasury) calling upon the Treasury to reveal more details of its method for forecasting capitalism. It is hoped that this could lead to a better understanding of how to control production, unemployment, government spending, etc.
The proposal is that the Treasury prepare a “macro model” for the future, and the Government together with certain firms will draw up their own “sub-models” to fit within the larger framework. The result of this happy alliance would be that capitalism could at last run smoothly. Not only firms with Government agreements are permitted to join this brotherhood:
This clause also requires the Treasury to provide its model to outside users, on a fee charging basis, so that they can make forecasts based on assumptions of their own, which may be different from the Treasury’s.
It may sound a bit like the horoscope fan who — not approving of his Stars for the Day in the Mail — buys a copy of the Mirror instead, but it isn’t, this is official. We leave for the moment the fact that the needs of capital have not been controlled in the past by models — Macro or Sub — on the contrary, Capital has roared and its would-be-tamers have jumped. Instead we observe more closely the business-like approach of the forecasters. One amendment requests that the Treasury
must also publish a retrospective analysis of its forecasting errors . . . to extract an estimate of the error due to mis-forecasting, after separating out the effects of changes in policy and external factors. It also requires estimated margins of expected error to be published. The trouble here is that figures of this kind which could be understood by more than a few specialists would be meaningless, and perhaps misleading. It is however important to establish the principle that errors are to be expected.
This all sounds somewhat confusing. What use, for instance, are estimates of errors separated from external factors? Come to that on what basis will estimated future error be forecast — even if only to produce figures which are meaningless and misleading. We do however, readily accept the principle that “errors are to be expected.”
. . . Who Needs Problems ?
We move on to the “most radical” of the three proposed amendments. This, Crawford forewarns, “I daresay only about a dozen people understand” (the Treasury itself is opposed) and we are appropriately grateful that he has felt it timely to invite us into this knowledgeable clique:
It means that the Chancellor should adopt a new economic discipline called Optimal Control or Policy Optimisation. Much research has been devoted to this in the US and, apparently in the Soviet Union. The Treasury has someone studying it at present.
The new “economic discipline” is also being intensively researched at Queen Mary and Imperial Colleges. Obviously it is worthy of careful attention, but what actually is it?
The basic premise of Optimal Control is that something is always bound to go wrong. Moreover when it does, we will surely move from that mess into some neighbouring mess: so contingency plans of a highly sophisticated kind should always be at hand to steer us into the least bad mess.
After this eloquently worded proposition has been considered, the working man or woman will soon see that things are always best left to the economic experts.
A minor point of inaccuracy in the report occurs when Crawford comments that more research is required before Optimal Control may be used on any more than a trial basis. We were under the impression that the sort of planning (?) he had outlined above was the only kind possible under capitalism.
Alan D'Arcy
No comments:
Post a Comment