Showing posts with label Heterodox economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heterodox economics. Show all posts

Tuesday, 4 September 2018

The right-wing trolls who are so ignorant they don't even understand the capitalist system they're defending


Almost every time I post a link explaining that Another Angry Voice is run on the Pay as You Feel principle I get a load of right-wing trolls trying to argue that by raising money in voluntary subscriptions I'm somehow guilty of "capitalism" and therefore a hypocrite.

In this article I'm going to explain why this argument is such a demonstration of cack-brained ignorance.

What is Pay as You Feel?

Pay as You Feel is a heterodox pricing strategy that gives the customer freedom over what they want to pay for the product.

There are many variant Pay as You Feel strategies. Many set the minimum price as absolutely free, however other variants can use a set price range, or a minimum price point (these strategies that make sense if the product is a material item with fixed production costs).

I use the absolute version of Pay as You Feel, essentially giving away all of my work for free, and relying on the good nature of a small percentage of readers who appreciate its value enough to set up subscriptions or make one-off donations to help keep me writing articles and producing infographics.

What is capitalism?

Capitalism is not just a synonym for trade, it's a specific form of trade based on the private ownership of the means of production, wage labour, orthodox price systems, and competitive markets, all of which contribute to the core purpose of wealth accumulation by the capitalist class.

There are many criticisms of the capitalist system including social inequality, exploitation, inefficient use of resources, unfair distribution of wealth, unfair competition (monopolies, oligopolies, price fixing, insider trading, cartels, corruption ...), regulatory capture, profiteering, and environmental degradation. 

However the basic principle is that the capitalist class owns the means of production, and uses wage labour and resources in order to generate profits.

Why Pay as You Feel isn't capitalism

Just think about it. How many corporations have you ever seen giving away their products totally for free, indefinitely, with the hope that a small percentage of people actually bother to pay for what they know could just have for free?

The idea that Pay as You Feel is somehow a capitalist enterprise because it involves making money is absolutely nonsensical, because if a wildly unorthodox pricing model like Pay as You Feel falls into their description of capitalism, it's pretty damned clear that the person defining Pay as You Feel as capitalism is ignorantly using the word capitalism as a euphemism for literally all forms of trade.

Pay as You Feel is an alternative to capitalism

The worst thing about this ignorant conflation of Pay as You Feel and capitalism is that heterodox strategies like Pay as You Feel actually represent alternatives to the capitalist way of doing things.

The orthodox way of running a blog in a capitalist system involves stuff like covering the website in adverts in order to raise advertising revenue, posting sponsored advertorials, including clickbait links at the bottom of each article, or putting up a paywall in order to get people to buy subscriptions at a fixed price.

The decision to eschew all of these fundraising options and rely solely on Pay as You Feel donations is clearly an unorthodox approach, but it comes with one very clear benefit. The writer using it maximises their editorial freedom because they can write whatever they like without the risk of pissing off the advertisers.

The idea of sacrificing revenue on a point of principle is about as far from the profit maximisation of capitalist enterprise as it's possible to get, yet still the right-wing trolls keep rolling up to argue that I'm a terrible hypocrite because Pay as You Feel is supposedly exactly the same as capitalism.

Isn't it wonderfully convenient for them that by adopting such a wide definition of capitalism that it encompasses all alternative forms of trade, only people who live in primitive mud huts in completely money-free societies have the freedom to criticise any of the excesses of the modern capitalist system without facing the charge of hypocrisy?


Neoliberalism

Since the late 1970s the political right have ripped apart the post-war consensus and pushed a radical form of deregulated, speculative, profit-maximising version of capitalism based on the absurd neoliberal notion that all humans are rational self-serving beings with a primary function of maximising their own self-interest.

Instead of building their economic models to reflect the reality of human society, the hard-right have spent the last four decades trying to remodel society to fit their crackpot economic models.

The fact that a pricing strategy like Pay as You Feel actually works is an absolute demonstration that their 'greed is a virtue' mentality is wrong, because if everyone was just a greedy self-serving economic being, there's no way that anyone would ever voluntarily pay money for a service that they could take for free.

That Pay as You Feel works at all is a clear demonstration that the effort to define human beings as self-serving economic units is utter nonsense, and that people often defy their own economic best interests if they believe there's a higher purpose than just maximising their own personal wealth and status.

If the neoliberal capitalists were right, Pay as You Feel would be a completely unworkable model. But here I am, a demonstration that heterodox economic ideas can work, yet the unthinking drones who support the hard-right neoliberal ideology have somehow turned this demonstration that the ideology they defend is flawed, into an accusation that I'm a capitalist and a hypocrite!

Are they really that stupid?

Image credit: Matt Bors
The answer, unfortunately is yes. A lot of people really are this stupid.

Take Louise Mensch who argued that it's illegitimate for anyone to ever protest against the worst excesses of the capitalist system if they've ever drunk coffee at Starbucks!

The same idiotic and absolutist argument in reverse is that anyone born in an NHS hospital, or who has ever used public roads must be a total hypocrite to believe in anything other than the public ownership of everything.


Then there's the idiots who try to argue that it's hypocritical to support socialism on the Internet because the mobile phone/laptop you're using was produced by capitalists.

The same idiotic and absolutist argument in reverse is that the development of the Internet relied on publicly funded research, and much of the technology in smartphones and laptops was developed with public funds too, therefore anyone who uses the Internet to argue against communist public ownership of everything is a hypocrite.


Why is ignorance so commonplace?

One of the main reasons ignorance is so commonplace is that the education system doesn't even cover the basics of politics and economics, meaning the only people who understand the absolute basic building blocks of political and economic debate are the 7% of the population who went to private fee-paying schools where these subjects are taught, or those of us who studied politics and economics of our own volition.

The right-wing propaganda rags have taken advantage of this widespread political and economic ignorance in order to push absurdly biased interpretations of political terms.

Therefore in the mind of a tabloid rote learner "socialism" means taking other people's money or class envy instead of public ownership of core infrastructure and services, and "capitalism" is used as a synonym for business or trade rather than a specific form of trade which relies on wage labour, the private ownership of the means of production, and orthodox pricing systems.


So when a right-winger rocks up to a Pay as You Feel blog to make the accusation that 'you're raising money therefore you're a capitalist', they're actually demonstrating their own ignorance of the capitalist system that they're so vehemently defending!

Keeping the lower orders in such a state of ignorance that they actually defend the system that represses them out of sheer ignorance of the basics of political and economic debate is the whole art of Conservative politics.

The Tories and the hard-right propaganda barons that own the vast majority UK news outlets deliberately keep people so stupid and misinformed that they'll actively fight against their own class interests, and continually attack anything that varies from the hard-right neoliberal orthodoxy.

And that's why you get smug right-wing idiots wilfully demonstrating their ignorance of what capitalism actually is, in order to vehemently defend the capitalist system that they clearly don't even understand!


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Please take the time to check out Matt Bors' excellent work here.

Saturday, 28 February 2015

What is ... the Pay as You Feel principle?



The Pay As You Feel principle (also known as Pay What You Want and Pay What You Like) is a heterodox pricing strategy that puts the customer at complete discretion over the price they are willing to pay for goods or services.

The most commonly used names for this pricing strategy are completely self-explanatory because the idea that the the customer is at complete freedom to determine the price for themselves is actually quite a simple one.

Even though the idea itself is simple enough, there are quite a lot of interesting economic factors to consider when it comes to breaking the orthodox mindset that things have a set price and replacing it with a pricing system that allows the price to exist as a free choice between £0 and any value the customer chooses.



Examples

I'm going to begin by briefly detailing a few examples of enterprises that are funded on the
Pay As You Feel principle.

Radiohead

One of the most famous examples of a Pay as You Feel pricing strategy was the release of the 7th album by the UK band Radiohead called "In Rainbows". The album was made available for download for whatever the fans wanted to pay for it. Although the majority of people who downloaded the album did it for free, it was reported that the digital revenues from this single album were worth more than the digital sales of all of their six previous albums combined.


The Real Junk Food Project

The Real Junk Food Project is a café in my old stomping ground of Armley in Leeds that uses discarded (but still perfectly edible) food from supermarkets and chain restaurants to provide meals on the Pay as You Feel principle. To date they have saved over ten tons of perfectly good food from going into landfill and inspired several other similar projects all over the UK. One thing that should really appeal to economists is the guy who came up with the concept of this West Yorkshire pay as you feel café was called Adam Smith!

Humble Bundle


Humble Bundle is a series of bundled digital creations that have been released on the Pay as You Fell principle since 2010 (here is a list of Humble Bundle packages). The average price paid per Humble Bundle has varied between just over $14 and just under $4. The fact that Humble Bundle has survived on this business model for over four years in the highly competitive markets of computer games, ebooks, audiobooks, videos and music is enough to show that Pay as You Feel is a viable potential business strategy.
        
Wikipedia

Although Wikipedia don't self-describe as a Pay as You Feel operation, it is quite clear that this is an accurate way of describing their fundraising operation because they rely on donations from users and refuse to allow adverts on their pages. The fact that Wikipedia is the seventh most visited website in the world, yet they only have 217 paid staff is an amazing tribute to the power of the collaborative community that built it, maintains it, and improves it; and to the the voluntary donation system that funds it.

Another Angry Voice (this website)


The only sources of income for this page are small donations from people who appreciate my work enough to make a donation, or set up a small monthly subscription (even though they are perfectly free have access to all of my online work without having to pay for it).
   
Advantages

Conducting business on the Pay as You Feel principle has distinct advantages for both buyers and sellers.

When the buyer is free to choose their own price, they are highly likely to pick a price they consider to be fair, because few customers are going to voluntarily select a price that lies outside their "spectrum of acceptability". This means that (as long as the product isn't shoddy) it's incredibly unlikely that the customer will end up feeling like they've been "ripped off" and suffering buyer's remorse.

This ability for the buyer to choose the price that they find most acceptable is a profoundly important factor because it's capable of providing the best possible sense of satisfaction to the customer, and I'm pretty sure that any marketing wonk will tell you that there is no batter advert for a product than a very satisfied customer.

Another of the main advantages for the seller is that they do not end up excluding customers by setting an arbitrary price for their product/service that is too high (some customers can't afford it) or too low (some customers may imagine it to be "trashy" or low quality if it is priced too low).

Yet another advantage to the seller is that by giving away their product for free they are still increasing exposure to their product, and increasing their potential future market in the process. If a writer ends up giving away ten thousand copies of their book for free, then if it is a good book, that's 10,000 people who might consider returning for another book in the future (potential future paying customers), and 10,000 people who may have gone around telling their friends and family how good the book is (free advertising).



Disadvantages

The existence of freeloaders is the most obvious disadvantage to the Pay as You Feel principle. If the buyer offers to give away their product for free to those who cannot afford it, there will always be people who will take the product for free, despite being more than affluent enough to be able to pay for it.

Even though the system is open to abuse by selfish people, my personal view is that I'd rather have ten of these selfish people freeloading, as long as one person who genuinely can't afford to pay isn't priced out of the market as would be the case had I chosen to use an orthodox arbitrary pricing system.

Another potential disadvantage with Pay as You Feel is that some people are deterred from buying at all because they "feel bad" if they imagine that they are paying less than an appropriate price, so they may not buy the product at all rather than risk feeling bad that they've somehow "cheated" by paying less than a fair amount.

A further potential disadvantage with the Pay as You Feel principle is that it is likely to be a sub-optimal pricing strategy if it is used in isolation. If 
the seller prefers to focus on their short-term profitability (rather than adopting some longer-term objective such as ensuring that the maximum number of people get exposure to your product) then it's probable that allowing numerous customers to take their product for free would not not be the optimal cashmaking strategy.

There are several ways of optimising Pay as You Feel so that the problems outlined above are minimised as much as possible, some of which I'll detail in the next section.

           
Optimising Pay as You Feel
Rewards

One of the simplest and most effective ways of optimising Pay as You Feel is to offer rewards to those who actually pay. To give an example, if you're marketing a music album, you could provide a bonus track (or three) on downloads that have actually been paid for, while the people who download the album for free just get a download of the standard version.

Recommended prices



Recommended prices are a good way of minimising the effect of the potential "feel bad" effect that deters some potential customers because they're afraid of feeling guilty about having paid the wrong price (detailed above). If the customer is given a clear indication of what is considered a fair price, then they can ensure that their payment falls within their personal "spectrum of acceptability" in relation to the numbers that have been suggested by the seller. 

Examples of two possible "recommended price" strategies are shown in the illustration.


Beat the average

One of the most efficient ways of maintaining a reasonably high level of payments is to offer a reward to those who beat the average price. If people can see that the average price paid by those who actually pay for the product is say £4.82, then they are likely to pay £5.00 and claim their reward. There is one potential drawback with this strategy, which is that potential customers who might be inclined to pay a lower price (say £1.50) but are unwilling to pay almost £5.00, might elect to not pay anything, or even not bother carrying out the transaction at all, on the basis that they'd be getting an inferior product (the product without the reward) if they paid less than the strike price.


Reputation

A Pay as Your Feel restaurant is a good example to illustrate how reputation can be a strong incentive for people to actually make a Pay as You Feel payment, rather than just freeload. If a person who is clearly homeless or destitute goes in and has a meal for free, nobody is going to begrudge them it, because they can't afford to pay. However if a clearly well-to-do couple come in and try to leave without paying anything for their meal, the staff are going to judge them for it, and they'd have to be pretty shameless people to be able to walk out of the place without feeling pretty conflicted about whether the sheer embarrassment of being such a "scrounger" was really worth the few quid they saved by not paying.

Online reputation is an increasingly important thing, so it is easy to see how online reputation could be used as an incentive for people to actually pay for their products in Pay as You Feel transactions. One potential strategy is the awarding of reputation points to those who choose to actually pay for Pay as You Feel products, then allowing those reputation points to be aggregated into the various online reputation management platforms of the kind that already exist.

Charity

Another strategy that can be used in order to encourage customers to pay a higher amount is to make it clear that a certain percentage of the payment will be given to charity, or that if a certain payment threshold is reached, a charitable donation will be made. The fact that customers pay substantially more when they know a charitable donation will be made has been proven in research. The research showed that the increase in price paid was significantly higher than the sums given to charity, meaning that this strategy is beneficial to the seller, and to the charitable causes alike.

Choice


Another way in which customers can be encouraged to pay a higher price under Pay as You Feel pricing systems is if they are given some choice over how the money is spent.

An example might be that the customer is free to choose how their money is spent once the price paid meets a certain minimum threshold. Hence a self-employed writer/journalist might allow their customers to choose into which spending category any amount over the strike price is allocated to, for example:

If you donate more than £5.00, you can choose how you think that extra money should be spent:
  • A donation towards my admin and travel costs
  • A donation towards my research materials
  • A donation towards my next book
  • A donation towards my new documentary
  • A donation towards my new website

If the customer is given choices like these, the transaction begins to feel more like an investment than a simple purchase at a set price. Not only does the customer get the satisfaction that part of their money is being "spent wisely", but they are also that bit more likely to remain a customer because they feel like they've actually made an investment in one of the seller's forthcoming projects, rather than having just participated in a one off set price transaction with the seller.
                    
Economic Considerations

If Pay as You Feel become a more popular pricing strategy, then there are many economic considerations. These include considerations of how such shifts in pricing strategies might interact with existing economic systems and ideas, and how Pay as You Feel could be used in conjunction with other novel economic concepts.

I am aware that this article is already quite long (even by my own standards) so I'll just briefly outline a few of these considerations.


Pay as You Feel and rational self interest

The fact that the Pay as You Feel principle actually even works is yet another glaring example to add to the ever growing mountain of evidence that many of the the fundamental concepts that underpin orthodox free-market ideology are hopelessly unrealistic. If the neoclassical economic models are correct, and all humans are rational agents committed only to the serving of their own economic self-interest, then a funding model which relies on people paying money for what they could have for free, simply couldn't work.

In order for Pay as You Feel projects to make money, a certain percentage of society must be ascribing a higher value to non-financial considerations such as fairness, social responsibility, generosity or charity, than to the pursuit of their own rational economic self-interest. If this were not the case then all customers would surely just choose to pay nothing and keep all of the money for themselves.

The fact that Pay as You Feel projects succeed shows that any economic system that defines human beings as perfectly rational economic agents must be fundamentally incapable of accurately describing reality. 


Every single time a person decides to pay for something that they could have had for free, it's a poke in the eye for people who believe in the right-wing economic orthodoxy.
              
Pay as You Feel and socialism

The Pay as You Feel principle is clearly compatible with the socialist dictum "
from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", but it puts the determination of how much is to be given in the hands of the individual, rather than having it dictated by the seller, or by the state.

In my view Pay as You Feel is entirely compatible with libertarian and anarchist versions of socialism where as much economic freedom as possible is devolved to the people, but it's fundamentally incompatible with old-fashioned "command and control" socialism, where the price of almost everything is dictated by centralised government agencies.


Pay as You Feel and price discovery

Price discovery is the process by which the price of an asset is determined in the marketplace.

The widespread adoption of Pay as You Feel funding models would have significant implications on the way that market prices would be determined. It is obvious that handing all discretion over the sale price to the buyer would have important price discovery implications for the enterprises that choose to adopt these strategies, but they would also have implications for other players in their marketplace too. If suddenly one seller begins offering their product on the Pay as You Feel principle, other agents may have to seriously consider adjusting their own pricing strategies in order to remain competitive.


Pay as You Feel and reputation

As I mentioned in the section on Pay as You Feel optimisation strategies, there is a great deal of potential overlap between Pay as You Feel and digital reputation strategies. As the availability of information storage continues growing exponentially, the capacity for tracking, managing and even financialising our digital reputation is going to increase. 


Money has always served as a store of reputation (the "wealth and status" aspect), so it makes a great deal of sense that this new found capacity for digitally quantifying reputation will likely be developed and financialised. If "being seen to pay a fair price for things" becomes an important part of one's digital reputation, then people's transactions with Pay as You Feel sellers could potentially assume critical importance.

Pay as You Feel and copyright law
             
           
If Pay as You Feel pricing strategies became more common in the digital downloads marketplace then the digital copyright theft industry would be severely undermined because the customer incentive to source copyrighted material from "pirates" would be almost eliminated. Why would anyone bother going to a bootleg operation for a copy when they could just obtain the item from the originator for free, or for whatever minimal price they deem most acceptable?

It doesn't matter at all whether you see online piracy as acceptable or not - it's a fact that websites like the Pirate Bay are currently seen by their users as fighting against the profiteering ways of the music, television and film industries.

Under Pay as You Feel the boot would clearly be on the other foot, with the legitimate seller cast as the freedom fighter giving his stuff away for free to those who can't afford it, and the "pirates" cast as the villain taking people's work for free and profiting from it (via ad revenue on their websites, selling it at a mark-up price, plagiarism or whatever). It wouldn't be long before the myth of the digital "pirate" as the information freedom fighter would be rendered obsolete by the fact that taking stuff that someone else has given away for free and then using it to make money for yourself is nothing more than parasitical profiteering.

As a customer it would take a severely tortured moral justification to explain why you went to an online bootlegger to get a copy of the film/book/animation/music, when you could have got it direct from the original source, either for free, or for whatever price you consider fairest. 

In my view it should be socially frowned upon to make a business model on giving away other people's free content (but not prohibited because policing the market place in free goods would blatantly a wasteful economic sinkhole of time and resources). However the act of actually charging people for access to other people's Pay as You Feel creative content should clearly be considered a crime because it represents a theft against the buyer. It's obviously fraudulent behaviour to charge someone a set fee for the content they could have had for free from the original source. 

Pay as You Feel and gifting economics

I'm particularly interested in gift economics, with which the Pay as You Feel Principle is very clearly compatible. If we think of Pay as You Feel transactions as being a gift to the buyer from the seller, and the Pay as You Feel payment as a reciprocal gift to the seller from the buyer, it is easy to see how the syntax of gift economics can be used to explain such transactions.

Thus transactions become "gifts" and payments become "reciprocal gifts", which builds a bond of recipricosity between the market participants, who no longer have to be considered "buyer and seller", but rather "giver and receiver".

When the giver is prepared to give their property away for free as a gift, then copyright law needs serve a much simpler function; that of enforcing the inalienable ownership of the giver - that any receiver can then give the product away for free again, but the originator retains the exclusive and inalienable right to sell at a price.
 

Gift economics is a fascinating subject, and I encourage you to do some more reading on it if ideas like the monetisation of society and the financialisation of class hierarchies make you feel sick, because gift economics provides an insight into how pre-monetary economic systems may have functioned, and how post-monetary or supra-monetary systems might be established.


Conclusion

After consideration, it seems that the best way to conclude this rather long article is to provide a brief personal explanation of why I decided to embrace the Pay as You Feel principle, rather than taking the much simpler (and likely much more profitable) orthodox approach of blathering my website in adverts and hosting a load of paid "click bait" articles at the bottom of each post.

The first reason is that I see Pay as You Feel as a test of my own faith in humanity. Do I believe strongly enough that there are enough fair-minded people out there to make enough small micro-donations between them to meet my costs of producing this blog, and my very modest costs of living? Choosing Pay as You Feel is a demonstration that I do.

The second reason is that I see Pay as You Feel as a test of my own ability as a writer. Am I capable of producing writing of sufficient quality that people consider what I'm doing good enough to be worth voluntarily supporting with their own hard-earned cash? 
Choosing Pay as You Feel is a demonstration that I do.

The third reason I've chosen to embrace Pay as You Feel is that I really want to see it succeed as a concept, because every single Pay as You feel transaction is a condemnation of the right-wing orthodoxy that tells us that humans are nothing more than self-serving units in the economy, and that every product in the economy has a fixed arbitrary price at any moment in time. 

          
Anyone who rejects the idea that the produce of their labour has a fixed price (as Pay as You Feel givers clearly do) is blatantly an economic rebel. By setting the price at 0-n (anywhere between free and whatever you want to pay for it) instead of picking an arbitrary fixed price for it, the seller is rejecting pretty much the entire orthodox economic framework. And by handing complete discretion to the receiver, the giver in the Pay as You Feel transaction is providing the receiver with the power to prove to themselves that they are behaving as unselfish agents in the economy too, meaning that their economic behaviour cannot be constrained by orthodox economic theories that cast them only as ruthlessly self-interested individuals.

So to summarise, I've chosen to live by the Pay as You Feel principle out of a curious blend of faith, self-belief and rebelliousness.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.





Flattr this




MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
Recommended reading - heterodox economics
           
What is ... a Credit Default Swap?
                     
What is ... fiscal multiplication?
       

How I overcame social anxiety to become a successful political writer
                             
We need to talk about cyber-bullying
                                         
What is ... wage repression?
                          
The terrifying scale of political illiteracy in the UK
                
The myth of right-wing patriotism
                      

Thursday, 4 September 2014

Recommended reading - Economics


Several people have written to me asking if I could suggest some books for them to read in order to broaden their understanding of economics. Instead of answering personally each time I've decided to combine the time I've been spending on writing short individualised responses into writing this more comprehensive article.

Hopefully it will be of some use to you, whether you specifically asked me for some recommendations or not.

Who this guide is for
         
         
This guide is intended to be useful whether you are an aspiring economics student, a current student disillusioned with the way in which your economics department uncritically pushes the failed neoclassical economic orthodoxy, an economics graduate who is keen to continue broadening their horizons, or someone with no background in economics at all who would simply like to learn more about the subject.

Many of the people to have asked me for reading advice are already economics students, economics graduates or people intending to study economics at university. It is a very positive sign that these guys have realised that there is a lot more to economics than the narrow mainstream neoclassical orthodoxy that has infected and overrun the majority of economics departments, and that they're looking for answers elsewhere.

Several of the other people to have asked me for economics reading tips have admitted that they have very little understanding of economics, which is hardly surprising given that economics courses aren't taught in the majority of UK state schools, meaning that the vast majority of the 93% of state educated kids end up leaving school as functional economic illiterates.

This public lack of basic economic literacy is extremely beneficial to the ruling establishment because it allows them to use all kinds of absolutely ludicrous economic fairy stories to justify their harmful economic policies.

I feel proud that people from many different walks of life have seen me as a reliable person to turn to for advice, and it makes me glad that there are still people out there who want to understand economic issues from different perspectives to the ones prescribed by the neoclassical orthodoxy.

Ha Joon Chang

A very good starting point for economics novices is the book "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism" by Ha Joon Chang. This is a brilliantly written book that rigorously deconstructs some of the many myths and outright fallacies that underpin conventional economics. In my opinion the best thing about the book is the way that Ha Joon Chang uses every day language to explain often quite complex economic ideas. Even if you feel that you're well aware of the flaws in orthodox neoclassical economics already, 23 Things is still worth a read because in my view it's a masterclass in discussing economic ideas in accessible language, which is an incredibly important skill.

I am looking forward to obtaining a copy of his latest book

Inside Job

Another good starting point is the 2011 film "Inside Job" directed by Charles Ferguson which provides an explanation of how the 2007/08 global financial sector insolvency crisis actually came about (spoiler alert - the UK Labour party was not entirely to blame for the global banking crisis as the Tory press would have you believe).

The truth is that the global financial sector insolvency crisis was caused by a toxic blend of greed, corruption, conflicts of interest, poor regulation, moral hazard, ideologically driven deregulations and an alphabet soup complex financial products.

The film gives a great overview of the economic meltdown that would have completely wiped out Wall Street and the City of London without the biggest state subsidies in history to bail out the insolvent financial sector institutions. The book of the same name provides a wealth of more detailed analysis.

Steve Keen

"Debunking Economics" by the Australian economist Steve Keen is an exceptionally good critique of the absolute nonsense that underpins the neoclassical economic orthodoxy. It's harder going than the work of Ha Joon Chang or Charles Ferguson, but it's really worth the effort. A must read for anyone who is intent on looking at economics from outside the narrow spectrum of the neoclassical orthodoxy.

Heterodox economics

Steve Keen talks a lot about heterodox economics in Debunking Economics. If you're intent on learning more about economics it's very important indeed to understand that there is no single unified subject called "economics". There is mainstream economics which is based on the flawed and assumption riddled neoclassical orthodoxy (more like a religious faith system than a social science), and then there are countless other fields of economics which are often classed together under the umbrella "heterodox economics".

There is actually very little in common between the various fields that are lumped together as "heterodox" other than that they have been pushed to the margins by the now completely invalidated, but still widely accepted, neoclassical orthodoxy.

This PDF provides a good overview of the myriad fields that make up "heterodox economics"
.

Behavoural Economics

Of the many promising heterodox economic fields, I'm particularly interested in behavioural economics, which stands in opposition to the neoclassical position that accurate economic models can be built upon the assumption that human beings act in their own rational self-interest. There is a huge amount of evidence to prove that in reality human beings actually make most of our decisions on an intuitive, non-rational level. Behavioural economics is about trying to work actual human behaviour, and human cognitive processes into our economic models.

If mainstream economics is ever going to make the progression from a pseudo-scientific quasi-religious ideology riddled with ludicrous assumptions and unquestionable core beliefs to become a legitimate social science, I'm certain that developments in behavioural economics are going to play an important part.


Economic inequality

Inequality has always been a theme in economics, but with the rise of the neoclassical orthodoxy it fell out of favour. In recent years inequality has made quite a comeback, so much so that two of the bestselling economics books in recent years directly addressed the theme. "The Spirit Level" by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson popularised the theory that too much inequality is extremely bad for the economy, and the French economist Thomas Piketty further developed the theme that growing inequality is a major threat to economic stability in his book "Capital in the 21st Century".


The 2013 documentary "Inequality for All" featuring Robert Reich is certainly worth some 90 minutes of your time too.

You've got to learn some Marx

Even if you are strongly inclined to disagree with Marxist and socialist ideas, you've got to accept that Marx was a genius of his age and at least look at some of his work.  Many of Marx's criticisms of capitalism hold as true today as they did when he wrote them in the 19th Century.

Das Kapital
and the Communist Manifesto are both freely available on the Internet, so you've got no excuse for not at least taking a look. My personal view is that Marx's critiques of capitalism were immeasurably superior to his predictions about how capitalism might be overthrown. However I urge you to look for yourself and make up your own mind about Marx's ideas rather than blithely accepting other people's parsed, paraphrased, misrepresented or just completely made up interpretations of his work.

If you're interested in finding out a bit more about who Karl Marx actually was, Francis Wheen wrote a decent biography.

But, you should probably read some Rand too

In order to gain a more complete understanding of an issue, it is often necessary to read things with which we strongly disagree. Thus you should probably read some of Ayn Rand's demented frothing. Rand had a powerful influence over the reactionary right-wing in the US, in fact her book "Atlas Shrugged" is still regularly appears on bestseller lists in the US.

One of Rand's inner circle of sycophantic acolytes Alan Greenspan went on to become Chairman of the US Federal Reserve between 1987 and 2005, where he unleashed wave after wave of ideologically motivated deregulations that culminated in the 2007-08 global financial sector insolvency crisis. Reading some of Rand's raving pseudo-philosophy helps us understand the ideological roots of the cult of the individual, greed-is-a-virtue, privatise everything, neoclassical mentality that has now infested the majority of economics departments, central banks, multinational organisations and political parties on the planet.

Orthodox economics

As a sceptic of the mainstream economic orthodoxy and free market dogma I'd caution people to use their critical judgement when reading the work of economists like Freidrich Hayek, Ludvig von Mises or Milton Friedman, but then you should strive to keep your critical judgement in play whatever you read, whether you're inclined to agree with it or not.

I'd also suggest reading some Adam Smith (perhaps Wealth of Nations) and considering how different many of his economic ideas are to those of the modern economic right who have so often championed him.

John Maynard Keynes

It's bit difficult to know what to suggest with Keynes, he was an incredibly influential economist, but his writing style can be somewhat impenetrable. There have been so many interpretations of his work that several distinct schools of Keynesian economics have developed 
(Neo-Keynesians, Post-Keynesians and New Keynesians).

If you are formally studying economics, make sure you have established some knowledge of Keynes for yourself before you learn someone else's interpretation of his work. Here's a link to Keynes' General Theory of Economics, and here's a fairly comprehensive list of books that have been written about him.

  
The capitalist "doves"

There are many economics commentators who seem to accept most of the core unquestionable faith positions that underpin conventional economics, but who don't fully subscribe to the extreme 
end of the capitalist spectrum (deregulate and privatise everything, massive tax cuts for corporations and harsh austerity for the masses). These guys are by and large supporters of the neoclassical capitalist orthodoxy, but they want to tinker with some of the ancillary beliefs to make capitalism a bit fairer and a bit less ruthless.

There are two positions to take on these guys. One is summed up with the Chomsky quote "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." One might say that economists like Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs and Nouriel Roubini are just providing the lively debate within the limited spectrum that is bounded by "capitalism rules OK". 

My personal view is that it is often worth reading what they have to say, despite the fact a lot of their core assumptions are extremely dubious.

Nouriel Roubini was one of the tiny minority of economists to accurately predict the 2007-08 financial sector insolvency crisis, so his book "Crisis Economics" is worth a read if you want to check out what one of these "capitalist doves" have to say.


Lesser known economists

                     
In my view some of the most interesting economists are people who have been largely forgotten, and rarely ever make appearances in standard economics courses.

Some of most interesting economists I've come across include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (French socialist and founder of mutualism)  Henry George (American left-libertarian, advocate of Land Value Tax and Basic Income),  Antonio Gramsci (Italian Marxist, defined the term "hegemony") Silvio Gesell (German anarchist and egalitarian, founder of Freiwirtschaft) Kenneth Boulding (Anglo-American economist, philosopher and Quaker, pioneer in systems theory and evolutionary economics) and Hyman Minsky (American Post-Keynesian, developer of the financial instability hypothesis).

I obviously don't agree with everything these guys came up with, but as is often the case, many of the most interesting and challenging voices have ended up being pushed to the sidelines in favour of those who know how to tell the rich and powerful exactly what they want to hear. In the case of economics it's clear that the ruling establishment love to hear that greed, selfishness, lack of empathy, hunger for power and pure 
self-interest are not vices, but virtues.

Economics doesn't exist in a vacuum

Economics overlaps with countless other 
fields of human endeavour. In fact many of the great economists throughout the ages have been recognised as profound thinkers in other important subjects aside from economics. These leading economic thinkers were more than just professional "money men", they were renowned philosophers, scientists, inventors, statesmen, political theorists, activists, mathematicians, social commentators and businessmen as well.

In my view it is of fundamental importance to try to synthesise what we learn about economics with what we already know of the world. In my case I've devoted much of my time to the study of philosophy and politics, which is convenient because these subjects are t
wo of the most natural bedfellows of economics (in fact the three are often formally combined in PPE university courses).
   
A better understanding of philosophy can provide the cognitive abilities to identify and criticise structurally incoherent economic ideas. A better understanding of political history and familiarity with common political structures and processes helps to clarify how abstract economic theories have been applied in the real world of politics.

The advice to read up on philosophy and politics is a bit vague, so I'll provide details of a few (hopefully) interesting things that broadened my perspective on how economic theories can interact with the subjects of philosophy and politics. Perhaps they may be of some use to you.

  • Bertrand Russell - "Proposed roads to Freedom": If you want to make yourself smarter, read some Bertrand Russell. This is as good a place to start as any.
  • Naomi Klein - "The Shock Doctrine": This book is a meticulously written history and critique of neoliberal politics and economics.
  • Noam Chomsky - Understanding Power: Chomsky is one of the great living intellectuals. It doesn't matter at all whether one agrees with Chomsky's politics, only a fool would claim that the man isn't a genius.
These suggestions are possibly of little use to people of markedly different experiences and mindsets to my own, so if you're more inclined to take a scientific, literary or perhaps business oriented perspective in life, try to consider the crossovers between particular economic ideas and aspects of your other fields of expertise.

Economics needs more thinkers with diverse "real life" experience and new perspectives to offer. What it certainly doesn't need is any more of the kind who have devoted the majority of their study hours to the uncritical rote learning of neoclassical economic dogma and little else.
             
The Keiser Report

                           
Max Keiser is a controversial figure, but in my view he's probably done more to popularise economics reporting than any man since the dawn of the television age. Max and his now wife Stacey Herbert present the first half of the thrice weekly Keiser Report show, and in the second half of the show Max interviews a guest, often someone with economics expertise, but occasionally others too. Some of his more offbeat guests have included 
Frankie Boyle, George Galloway, Kerry-Ann Mendoza (AKA Scriptonite Daily), Russell Brand and Mark McGowan (AKA The Artist Taxi Driver).

I don't see eye to eye with Max Keiser on everything, he's too much of a "gold bug", he is too keen on the Austrian school of economics and he doesn't interview nearly enough left-libertarians for my liking. But one thing is for sure, The Keiser Report is guaranteed to give you food for thought, especially if the guest is an interesting one.

If you watch nothing else of the Keiser Report, at least try a couple of episodes featuring the aforementioned economist Steve Keen (episode 4, episode 77, episode 226, episode 418, episode 500).

                  
Tax-Dodging and Capital flight

Tax-dodging and capital flight are two important subjects in contemporary economics. I've written short introductory articles on both of these interrelated subjects. If you would like to learn more about the alarming scale of tax-dodging, and why it is such a major economic problem you could read "Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the men who stole the world" by Nicolas Shaxon, or you could take a look at Richard Murphy's Tax Research UK blog or the Tax Justice Network website.  
                   
Rethinking economics
             
Rethinking Economics is a global movement to promote pluralism and critical thinking in economics courses. The movement arose out of a protest by Manchester University students against the uncritical teaching of the neoclassical economic orthodoxy in their economics department, despite the fact that huge swathes of neoclassical economic theory have clearly been completely refuted by the global financial sector insolvency crisis and the massive state bailouts. 
The Manchester students are called The Post Crash Economics Society, and in 2014 they won  university society of the year at the 2014 NUS Awards.

Positive Money

Positive Money is a movement which attempts to educate the public about the nature of money, how most of it is created out of nothing by private banks and rented out to the public as interest bearing loans, why this is a problem (inflationary bubbles and ever increasing levels of debt), and what they propose to do about it (giving monopoly power to create money to a kind of central bank-politburo).

My view on Positive Money is surprisingly similar to my view on Karl Marx. They have correctly identified flaws in the economic system and have attempted to inform the public of the problems - which is highly commendable, but their proposed solutions leave quite a lot to be desired.

Whatever your views on the nature of currency, Positive Money are definitely worth keeping an eye on.

     
My own work
 
I have written several articles on economic subjects, I suppose this is one of the main reasons that people have asked me for advice on economic matters. So my economics articles are probably the main reason that this article even exists.

I have written about many subjects ranging from the absolute basics (the difference between a debt and a deficit) through economic ideas that lots of people tend to grasp intuitively without realising there are specific economic explanations (Marginal Propensity to Consume, Hidden Inflation, Fiscal Multiplication) to much more complicated things (Information Asymmetry, Credit Default Swaps, Quantitative Easing).

I have also written a number of articles on Universal Basic Income and I intend to write a lot more about alternative currencies at some point in the future ...


Social media

I have set up a Twitter list of interesting economics related accounts. Feel free to do a spot of cherry picking of interesting accounts to follow, or to suggest other accounts you believe should be added to the list.

              
Finally

I hope this short guide to learning more about economics has been of use to you. 


If you would like to offer more economics recommendations in the comments section, please go ahead. 



 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, 
it would be massively appreciated.


Flattr this


More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE    
    
The "What is ... ?" series
           
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies
            
Who is to blame for the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis?
              
What is wage repression?
           
The JP Morgan vision for Europe

           
Workfare, neoclassical economics and tabloid mindsets
           
                 
                
Tony Benn and the neoclassical orthodoxy