Ghost of Socially Useful Labor Haunts G20

September 30, 2009

by Chidem Kurdas

French president Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly wanted  the G20 leaders to introduce a special tax on all financial transactions, known as the Tobin tax. Mr. Sarkozy took the idea from Adair Turner, the head of the British Financial Services Authority. Lord Turner suggested last month that the tax might be used to shrink the financial sector, which has grown too big and is in part “socially useless.”

The argument that activities like securities trading add no social value and the labor is better channeled into other areas has now become popular. Hence the resurgence of James Tobin’s 1970s proposal of a tax on foreign exchange transactions to discourage speculative trading. But the notion of socially useful work dates back centuries. In fact, it reached its zenith with Marxian labor theory and Soviet planning.

According to Soviet ideology, any work in state-run factories or farms was socially useful, whereas private economic activities were likely motivated by greed and could harm public well-being. Another belief was that manufacturing and agriculture made “real” contributions but services like wholesale and retail trade did not.

This real vs. trade distinction is now to be found in commentaries on the financial sector. Thus a pundit writes that a Tobin tax “would squash the profitability of much of the short-term trading which swells investment bank profits without doing anything to create value in the real economy.”

The Soviets thought they were building a rationally organized economy by investing very little in services. Yet the shortage of those supposedly useless middlemen was a disaster. Russian central planners’ presumption that you can identify and squash unproductive activities turned out to be a historic blunder.

A Soviet hallmark – the ugly, unpleasant and empty store – was the visible symptom of a systemic disease. Not having a well-developed wholesale and retail industry was a colossal impediment to matching production and consumption. It resulted in gigantic inefficiencies, with resources wasted making the wrong products while the population’s needs went unsatisfied.

The Soviet economy was also badly hobbled by the lack of financial services, another “unproductive” field of endeavor. Now we have come back full circle to this way of thinking: the powers-that-be decide what’s productive and what’s not. That they could be wrong does not appear to even occur to them. It did not occur to Soviet planners, either, until the irreversible decline became obvious.

Any human activity can be unproductive. How productive is all that pork embedded in the recent federal stimulus package?  As Mario Rizzo pointed out in this blog, members of Congress could not have even read the 1,400 page monster bill.  Ah, but interest groups knew what’s in it for them—-they probably wrote their own portion. Great rent extraction; great damage to the public interest.

Not surprisingly, the political elite is not concerned about the value it itself adds to society. It never is. Whatever the government does is by definition taken to be productive. The Soviets knew that, for sure.

4 Responses to “Ghost of Socially Useful Labor Haunts G20”

  1. Bogdan Enache Says:

    Dear Chidem,

    Sarkozy supports the Tobin tax because he cannot stand the fact that the financial sector is globalised and escapes the heavy hand of the French government : money can be easily transferred elsewhere, investment firms, hedge funds, banks can easily move abroad; multinational shareholders don’t bow to the authority of chief politician in Paris and so on. That’s why he likes – and does everything he can to protect – big corporation, French owened, with tangible assets : factories, shops etc. Plus, as you say, he really probably doesn’t understand the role of finance in the economy. His economic philosophy is Colbertism with some leftish slang, but in France he managed to pass as a liberal for criticizing the 35 hours working week and a few other small things. That’s how bat it is.

  2. chidemkurdas Says:

    That does sound pretty bad. But there’s plenty of the same mindset here, too. I really like your way of describing his economics; “Colbertism with some leftish slang”!

  3. Drewfus Says:

    From the 2nd link to Prospect:
    “The financial sector has grown too big. It needs to shrink.”

    Well last year the much maligned free market wanted to do quite a bit of shrinking of the financial sector, but the wise men who know best wouldn’t allow it.

  4. chidemkurdas Says:

    Good point. The goal appears to be to get it under their control. After all, some particularly bloated financial entities are government-created & controlled; Fannie & Freddie are huge.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: