|
BullionVault's Paul Tustain examines economic failure - with the help of
a broken laptop.
Freefall
Forgive me lapsing into anecdote if I promise it will be instructive - besides
it's more entertaining than economics.
When my last laptop stopped behaving itself I called the support hot-line,
and spoke to someone much more qualified than me to fix it. He told me how
to run some tests and we re-set my 'system configuration', whatever that is.
But despite his assurances that the system should now work it did not.
After a week or two of increasing desperation in the end there was only one
way I could get my computer back to predictable behaviour. I threw it out of
a second floor window, confident it would follow the parabola of any object
falling freely under the influence of gravity. And that's exactly what happened.
Natural laws had prevailed, and they continued prevailing as the machine redistributed
its carefully organized components into disorganised chaos shortly afterwards
- as predicted by science's second law of thermodynamics.
(I warmly recommend smashing old computers. Not only is it a delightful and
low cost form of revenge but it offers a practical way of denying people cleverer
than you the later opportunity of reading your private emails)
Simple science and complex technology
Science is about simple laws. A single scientist explained the motion of the
planets and free-falling laptops. Another discovered and explained the process
of evolution - again working alone.
In contrast to the simplicity of scientific explanation technology is the
work of countless thousands. No-one can point to a single individual and say "that
person produced the modern computer". Machines are the result of new designs
and solutions stacked one on top of the other - usually until no-one wholly
understands how all the pieces work together. They are masterpieces of organized
complexity.
Science's second law of thermodynamics - which predicted my chaotic heap of
broken computer pieces - also predicts that when a system of any kind gets
complicated you have to pour in energy and effort to maintain the complexity.
It correctly predicts that all organized systems eventually break down and
become disorganized again. Everything from a house to a human body, from a
bag of sugar to a spaceship, obeys this law. Time eventually makes organized
things turn back into formless mush, and the best we can do is pump in increasing
amounts of energy to hold the inevitable decay in check for a while.
And now - sadly - we return to economics.
The 21st century economy is a technical device
The modern western economy is a designed system too, although it used not
to be. In the old days nobody seriously tried to organise the forces of economics.
Instead everyone just sat out the bad times scratching a living in fields and
factories, while natural forces swung the economy to and fro.
Then western economic engineers realized economic forces could be organized
and harnessed. They discovered that under the right circumstances if money
flows were directed in a clever enough way they could produce an economic system
which benefited people. This has had the amazing result that those of us who
have lived inside their increasingly complicated economy have become the wealthiest
people ever. (So although this article is probably published between diatribes
against central bankers it is worth remembering that without them almost none
of us would be rich enough to be interested in the debate.)
Nevertheless the natural laws of science and of economics will win out. There
is absolutely no doubt that this cleverly organized and beneficial economic
system will fail; no doubt whatsoever. The only question is "When?"
The Error Message
My old computer reacted to its increasing complexity by delivering me a series
of error messages. It started with 'Disk read checksum error', went through
'please consult your system administrator' (by which I think it was optimistically
referring to me), and finally offered what computer people call the 'blue screen
of death', just before its short and violent final journey.
In much the same way there are ominous error messages coming out of the western
economies - in the form of the twin deficits. Every one of 100 million US families
spends $5,000 too much every year. They are allowed to by the US government,
which leaves that money in the family's pocket while enthusiastically spending
it too.
This money leaves the US, and is then lent back by foreigners to cover the
government shortfall. The US will have to pay interest on this borrowed money
as well as somehow claw back over the coming years the significant sum of $75,000
from each of 100 million US families. This is the unprecedented extent of the
US public debt.
Our central bankers call these "imbalances" in the world economy. They are
the error messages - like my computer's checksum - which nobody knows how to
fix any more. Perhaps governments could raise an extra $5,000 dollars a year
in tax from each family. But that would cause a spiralling implosion of demand.
Suddenly millions and millions would be jobless and the diminished tax take
from their employers and their salaries would leave the public purse even worse
off than it is now. So logic dictates (to the current administration at least)
that we must look the other way - to tax cuts which boost the economy and produce
higher gross revenues. But although it worked for Reagan no-one really believes
this solution either, and it certainly isn't working so far. The truth is that
the previous level of taxation was somewhere near optimal. If we got an overspending
habit at that rate - which we did - it would be unfixable, and debt would go
up and up until something broke.
The second law of thermodynamics has patience. It allows us to expend our
energies and break the economic monotony of fields and factories by organizing
a perfectly good system with a perfectly useful output; yet there is never
a doubt the system will eventually decay. As I was reminded by my failing computer
this is no bad time to check your backup strategy.
|