Att förstå marknadens mekanismer

För att förstå hur marknaden fungerar är det angeläget att studera teorier framförda av tänkare som Ludwig von Mises, F A Hayeck, Robert Nozick m fl. Som von Mises påpekat ägnar sig liberalt sinnade inte åt den närmast religiösa auktoritetstro som förekommer på andra håll. Man behöver inte gilla allt av J S Mill eller John Locke. Man måste inte försvara allt vad andra kommit fram till utan intar en mer vetenskaplig attityd. Vissa saker kan behöva modifieras p g a faktorer författaren inte kände till. Samhället förändras.

Dock lär vi oss det väsentliga av teorierna. Är man som undertecknad ekologistiskt sinnad menar man att de karteller Adam Smith varnade för då de höjer priserna kan vara acceptabla i vår tid av miljöproblem. Faktorer som inte var relevanta under Smiths tid gör att vi idag i vissa fall kan acceptera något han varnade för Utan att hävda att han hade fel i sitt tänkande. Tvärtom utgör detta grunden för vår slutsats!

Vissa tror att libertarianska teorier alltid leder till ett försvar av privata lösningar och ett motstånd mot offentliga initiativ. Det behöver inte vara så. Om invånarna i en kommun önskar mer el och de privata företagen inte kan leverera detta, inte bara kan utan också bör ett kommunalt elbolag bildas. Kan skattemedel och lån bolaget tar utöka mängden producerad el skapas inte bara nödvändig el utan också ett bolagsvärde. När detta är nog högt bör kommunen sälja bolaget för att istället uppodla en annan marknad eller sänka skatten, ge kommuninvånarna tillbaka de pengar de satsade när bolaget nu fullgjort sin uppgift. Man har förstått marknadsteorierna och agerat utefter dem.

On riba

A sheykh from Uzbekistan, living in West,  has made a distinction between 'halal mortgage' and 'haram interest'. Although I am not a muslim in the formal sense but a believer, the distinction the sheykh did attracted my attention, it was worth some consideration. The outer scenario is the same in the both cases in his comparision. You buy a house (or someting else) for money you did not previously own. That money sets you in a position to move into a house - and to use it. You have to pay back the money and a little extra. In both cases you pay the same amount of money. The money that made it possible for you to move into the house. In both cases you pay the same amount as an extra. Is it important what that amount is called? We call it 'interest' when we lend money from a bank. But what we call a thing cannot be the essential. The essential has to be what a thing is.

If you voluntarily have agreed to pay a small amount as an extra, the terminology is not the important thing. The important thing is your legal position. Strong or weak? We can agree that the principle behind the islamic concept of riba is a sound one. The purpose is to support the weaker part in the transaction. A rich person or a bank is guaranteed a success by the interest you pay for the loan you use in your business activities but you take the risk and may bear the burden of a loss all by your self. But is it better if you have to involve someone else in the decisions you have to make? Is that something that makes you weaker or stronger?

The difference between 'halal mortgage' and 'haram interest' is  a legal one: When you loan money to buy a house, or a car, for example, you own that thing you bought with the money. In The mortgage case you became not the owner but are buying the thing bit by bit when you are giving the buyer (the bank) of the house the money they used to buy the house and that little extra not considered as riba, because you did not own the house - or the money. The bank is the owner. Legally it is the bank that buys the house and you buy the house from the bank in several small portions. This remindes me of situation were people have exclaimed that 'It is not you that own your house, it is the bank!' This because of the fact that the bank has the right to sell your house at an executive auction if you do not pay back the loan with interest.

It seems that the two cases are very similar. If you buy a house and are not able to pay for it, you have become insolvent and have to sell what you can to solve your financial problems. If it is the mortgage case or the interest case. Practically speaking there is no difference at all. It seems as if the distinction ought to be done in another way to give us the possibility of a well functioning society without the risk of the richer and stronger misusing their strength against the weaker and poorer.

Consider a case mentioned by the famous J H L Hart: A person is drivning a car and suddenly he looses controll over the vehicle due to a swarm of bee attacking his head. He cannot see and cannot stop the car. He causes a child to die since he could not stop the car. It is not murder and it is not dangerous drivning.

If you take a loan to buy a car with the intention that your career as a taxi driver may benefit from this and you have no possibility of taking a loan without interest and a great chanse to get more passangers and money. And you are allowed to reduce your taxes with the amount you pay in interest, then this must be described as a case of 'not riba' since the lack of intention.

The banks reduce the poverty in the society. Without them there would be a far lesser amount of tax payers and each of them poorer.

Who is responsible for the rainforests?

As an environementalist who likes market solutions, the problem of deforestation is someting to adress. An unrestricted exploitation seems unresponsible since those forests are important for the welfare of the whole planet. To do nothing is not to take a market friendly position since to do nothing is not the solution of a problem consisting in doing nothing to stop an accelerating deforestation of the important rainforests of the Earth.

Investments and reinvestments in agricultural production gives us the food we need for survival, our daily bread, so to speak. This is done, mainly, by private initiatives, private firms. I think we have to invest in the rainforests to save them. I leave it as an excercise for the reader to figure out how it can be done in a reasonable way. It is not hard to understand that Brasil, for exsample, want incomes from the resourses in the forests. If the world wish to save the forests, it has to invest in them. In a way that saves the forests from destruction. It is here we need market solutions. I think, personally, that legal prohibitions and taxes can mean someting important, but only if you understand how the market works. A higher price and a lower supply is equivalent to a more responsible income making, considering the rainforests as an area for global exploation. The exploated area of the valuable forests can in this way become minor without a loss for the producers and sellers. We can buy seeds and replant those valuable plants elsewhare as a complement and as an act of responsibility, if we really want to save them - and us.

The meaning of poetry

What are poetry and why do we write poetry? Those questions are difficult to answer. The sounds of the words linked in a chain with rythm and perhaps rhyme are not the sole purpose of the activity to write poetry. To produce images and feelings is the main purpose. Images and feelings are intertwined in an entity signaling oneness of expression. Poems are excellent vehicles for religious ideas. The mysticism of religion is closely related to the mysticism of poetry, speaking of siblingship. The poet and the religious minded understand each other.