23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

[Q]

A series of eight interviews with economist Ha-Joon Chang, which teaches at the university of Cambridge who wrote a book about, well, 23 things they don't tell you about capitalism. While explicitly saying it is not an anti-capitalist manifesto, the series do touch a lot of interesting stuff.

Among other things in part 3 for example, there is a bit about how Warren Buffet's fortune is primarily based on society, not because of the work Buffet has put in. "So", the interviewer then asks, "why are we still stuck with forms of ownership originating from the 15th century? Doesn't it make more sense to have society as a whole own the economy?".

So yes, I think it is worth a watch. Read the index page of all eight parts here: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=708

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's ashame that, in the second part, Development Economist Ha-Joon Chang doesn't touch upon Indicative Planning (France, Kosygin-era SU, Japan, etc.). I'm gathering material for commentary on this right now.

OTOH, he does touch upon this in his book:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=qUqoS7MTwPwC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=%22ha+joon+chang%22+%22indicative+planning%22&source=bl&ots=2pQ7TT2CUV&sig=_vslo3GzJsHREzGOQePVPiS7H8U&hl=en&ei=EBh2TtyJDvTWiALWwJi0Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false


Even in a capitalist economy, there are situations - a war, for example, in which central planning is more effective. For example, during the Second World War, the economies of the major capitalist belligerents, the US, the UK and Germany, were all centrally planned in everything but name.

But, more importantly, many capitalist countries have successfully used what is known as "indicative planning." This is planning that involves the government in a capitalist country setting some broad targets concerning key economic variables (e.g., investments in strategic industries, infrastructure development, exports) [...]

France had great success in promoting investment and technological innovation through indicative planning in the 1950s and 60s, thereby overtaking the British economy as Europe's second industrial power. Other European countries, such as Finland, Norway and Austria, also successfully used indicative planning to upgrade their economies between the 1950s and the 1970s. The East Asian miracle economies of Japan, Korea and Taiwan used indicative planning too between the 1950s and 1980s. This is not to say that all indicative planning exercises have been successful; in India, for example, it has not. Nevertheless, the European and East Asian examples show that planning in certain forms is not incompatible with capitalism and may even promote capitalist development very well.

Now I wonder if Indicative Planning is a far superior "school of planned economy," to quote Trotsky in relation to the computerized planning of Cockshott-Cottrell, than the slippery "workers control."

[FuzzypegX]

Despite being a bourgeois scoundrel, Ha-Joon Chang is a vital resource on a number of issues. I've read both his "23 Things" and his book on development theory "Kicking Away The Ladder" and both are excellent, although "23 Things" is fairly empirically light and more of a "bestseller" than a serious piece of academic writing.

He is opposed to fully centrally planned economies of the "command style", as he openly states in a number of places, in particular in "23 Things" he perpetuates the usual tedious myths about how command central planning makes people "unmotivated" etc. etc.

To quote specifically:

"In pursuit of the communist vision of a classless society based on collective ownership of the 'means of production' (e.g. machines, factory buildings, roads), the Soviet Union and its communist allies aimed for full employment and a high degree of equality. Since no one was allowed to own any means of production, virtually all enterprises were run by professional managers (with minor exceptions such as small restaurants and hairdressers), preventing the emergence of visionary entrepreneurs, like Henry Ford or Bill Gates. Given the political commitment to high equality, there was a clear cap on how much a business manager, however successful, could get. This meant that there was only a limited incentive for business managers to turn the advanced technologies that the system was clearly capable of producing into products that consumers actually wanted. the policy of full employment at all costs meant that managers could not use the ultimate threat - that of sacking - to discipline workers. This contributed to sloppy work and absenteeism; when he was trying to reform the Soviet economy, Gorbachev frequently spoke of the problem of labour discipline."

No sources are provided to substantiate the numerous claims that he makes in the above passage and he totally fails to differentiate between the pre-and-post Krushchev era and the rise of revisionism in Soviet economic policy.

As regards his own position he favors "mixed economies" and protectionist economics (infant industries etc.) and heaps particularly praise on South Korea.

All this having been said, I would say "Kicking Away The Ladder" is well worth a read and has been an extremely useful book in studying development management as part of my degree course.