1 October, 2020

Blog

In Defence Of Capitalism: A Response To Sumanasiri

By R.M.B Senanayake

R.M.B Senanayake

R.M.B Senanayake

Response to Mr. Sumanasiri Liyanage’s comments on Dr W.A Wiijewardena’s article on Bastiat

I refer to Mr. Sumanasiri Liyanage’s comment on Dr. Wijewardena’s article which he says is to offer “legitimacy to Capitalism and its latest phase, neoliberalism, including the undefined economic policies and strategies of the present government”.

Yes indeed it is a defense of Capitalism against the attacks of those like Mr. Sumanasiri Liyanage who keep on harping on how immoral the Capitalist system is. He refers to what he calls the new neo-liberal version of Capitalism which was the answer of the defenders of Capitalism to the crisis that had emerged in the 1970s when because of strong trade unions acting irresponsibly was endangering not only Capitalism but the entire process of economic development in the modern world.

A capitalist economy involves millions of individuals and capitalist firms, all making decisions that are not deliberately coordinated beforehand. When some people decide to save part of their incomes, it does not automatically mean that they will find others who want to borrow and invest. When some people decide to invest, it does not automatically mean that they will find buyers for the goods produced as a result. Keynes pointed out that there was no automatic mechanism to ensure the two are equated always. So Capitalism had a tendency to alternate between periods of boom and periods of decline or bust.

Generally such crises were short lived and did not need much corrective action by the State or anybody else. But things had changed with the Full Employment ushered in by the Keynesian policies in the post war period. Workers had been protected by the State and termination of employment was made difficult. The trade unions had become strong and still held the Marxist view that the capitalist was an enemy of the worker. The workers were by and large socialists and were opposed to the capitalists although much less so than in the past.

Capitalism requires capital accumulation and the investment of such accumulated capital in the process of production. It is this process of capital accumulation followed by investment and innovation that drives economic development. It requires social conditions which provide for the capitalist producers to make a sufficient profit to cover the cost of capital. Keynesian policies had provided for the recovery of the economy from a deep depression in 1929. But the postwar years had led to the emergence of strong trade unions which had a much larger and more secure place in the capitalist economies owing to State protection. The unionization rate had peaked and the trade unionists were aggressive and mouthed anti-capitalist and socialist slogans. They considered the capitalists as the enemies of the workers- a hangover from the earlier Marxist rhetoric. In such an environment where workers demanded and obtained higher wages outstripping productivity increases. Capitalist firms cannot turn a profit and they will not have an incentive to invest. If capitalist companies do not invest, factories will be shuttered and workers unemployed.

Such crises in the past ( except in a few exceptional situations) generally led to a more or less automatic recovery as unemployment increases and the wages of workers stop rising creating an environment for the recovery. But over-regulation by the State and over-protection of the workers had caused a social structure to emerge in the 1970s where capitalist production and wealth creation had stagnated. This social environment was to be blamed and in the 1970s there was stagflation- inflation with stagnation. Then came another shock in the form of the sudden oil price increases. In 1973-1974, the first of two major “oil shocks” increased the price of petroleum four-fold, dramatically raising energy costs for both consumers and businesses. Workers’ wage demands outpaced the rate of productivity growth, driving up unit labor costs for businesses. The annual inflation rate in the developed economies, spiked to over 10% in 1974 and again in each of the three years from 1979 to 1981. Economists realized that the driving force of the capitalist economies had petered out. They realized that it depends on the institutional framework in which capitalist companies operate. If the institutional framework does not work, and the market forces do not mesh, the result is a crisis.

The economy seemed trapped in “stagflation,” so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment (“stagnation”) with high rates of inflation. Traditional macroeconomic policy tools seemed powerless to deal with it. In the 1960s, the idea of a stable inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation (known as the “Phillips curve”) became part of the economic-policy orthodoxy. If the unemployment rate was high wages would fall. This no longer seemed to work.

Keynesian economic policies were found to be failing in dealing with inflation and the freedom of the markets was sought to be restored. The institutional framework that had fostered economic growth was no longer working. It was necessary to curb the power of the trade unions while respecting their trade union rights.

Margaret Thatcher realized the need to tame the trade unions and tightened the laws regulating them. She was followed by other western countries and even the statist European States like France had to follow suit.

In fact our economy has been unable to forge ahead because of the excessive power of the trade unions particularly in the public sector which are still dominant in our economy. The over-protection of labor and the extremist actions of the trade unions have to be curbed for economic growth whether by the State driven or Capitalist driven.

I don’t want to write a eulogy for Frederic Bastiat for neo-liberal economists recognize his work as important for economic growth through free markets. The Bastiat society was inaugurated recently and its task is to promote free market ideas and expose the un workability of socialist economics.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 1
    0

    You all are socialists living the capitalist dream.

    Just blame capitalism and live in it.

    IF not go to North Korea and live there.

  • 0
    0

    capitalism or socialism when led by bigoted idiots who are corrupt, dishonest and unaccountable the system will fail as in SL. The more pertinent question is have we replaced the corrupt with another bunch of corrupt politicians led by RW. Forget the rhetoric citizen Perera should get used to the idea that it will be more of the same. The country is in for a bleak future.

  • 0
    1

    Jim softy …. Capitalism never function even one day without WORKERS.
    Secret law of Capitalism!!!!!!!!!!!

    Of cause people believed many ideology and different school of thought but right have live under the Capitalism.
    Even Marx and Engels was living in your system of Capitalism.
    Is capitalism only permitted ,live only Capitalist?

    Why should Capitalism allow works live, why Not that they killed all workers in one stroke?
    Capitalist cannot survived without workers.

    By and large without workers, that they( Capitalist) have NOT PROFIT TO RUN THIER OWN SYSTEM EVEN ONE DAY.
    That is logical out come of Capitalism.

  • 0
    0

    I will agree that Capitalism is the answer if you agree that the 1973 oil shocks were Capitalist in nature.

    If not what were they? Certainly not communist. Oligarchy you say – well oligarchy is Capitalism.

    “”The study of attitudes is reasonably easy […] it’s concluded that for roughly 70% of the population – the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale – they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They’re effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it’s plutocracy.” Extract from the transcript of a speech delivered by Noam Chomsky in Bonn, Germany, at DW Global Media Forum, 15 August 2013.”

  • 0
    0

    Capitalist system’s weakness is systemic. Keynes knew about it. He said that in order to ensure stability what is saved must be invested but the investment must be subjected to a special condition. He explained it further. If the investment made satisfies the need for immediate consumption then employers would make a loss and as a result employers would reduce output and employment. What is this?; It is an inbuilt crisis. To avoid this crisis he insisted that investments made should not satisfies the need for immediate consumption. However he did not understood that this was a formula to postpone the crisis because investments made would bring consumables to market in the future. When that happens crisis begin. This problem need to be understood and must be resolved. That is the best form of defense of capitalism.
    Hema.

  • 0
    0

    Since you write about the Capitalist system can you please explain the following.
    1.The American worker had his salary pegged and the pegging had not been changed since then.Why are the working masses voting with Republicans?
    2The medicare concepts implemented bY President Obama is about to come to an end.This affects the middle class and the poor.This very class vote for republicans – Why?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.