Category: fiscal policy

  • Can’t Get No Satisfaction

    Can’t Get No Satisfaction

    In economic terminology, the term “utility” has not much to do with multifunctionality nor completing specific useful tasks.

    It does in context, relate to the level of satisfaction or “completeness” one derives from the consumption of a product or service. For example, there is only so much pizza you can eat before feeling ill from satiety.


    On a broader and more macroeconomics spectrum, our utility levels will also help determine how resources are allocated and consumed.

    Definition

    The concept, a brainchild of Daniel Bernoulli, has so many relevant connotations. As humans, we individually have a maximum biological boundary which when reached, signals absolute satisfaction. This in economic terms is called maximum (total) utility.

    Total utility is the complete satisfaction that you can get from consuming all units of a specific item.


    Economists are more interested in the changes in levels of utility or what is referred to as the marginal utility.

    We will return to its application to the economy.

    Applying utility

    N26_banner-160x600-EN

    Incidentally, the utility has no formal unit of measurement – though we coined the term “utils”. These so-called utils equate a number to utility levels in a controlled sample experiment.


    Understandably it can be quite a feat to quantify utility as it is based on human behavioural preferences. The closest we got to quantifying such was via the marketing concept of the consumer black box.


    As an illustration, the concept can be applied to something as basic as eating a delicious meal.


    Depending on how hungry you were, you would derive the highest utility from the first few bites of your meal.


    As you progressed and depending on your appetite, each additional fork/ spoon, or handful would provide fewer levels of satisfaction. As you reach your stomach’s capacity (towards satiety) your utility diminishes.

    This can be applied to the taste of the meal. It specifically explains why we tend to eat something sweet after a main (savoury) meal.

    The appreciation of ice cream when you are starving would diminish quickly as you concentrate on filling up your stomach. This as opposed to enjoying the taste.

    When compared to the running of an economy, governments and policymakers can determine which goods and services yield the most utility.


    This helps them to consequently direct expenditure to identified priority areas (products/services).

    It is a long term concept

    Education, for instance, may not provide immediate utility (gratification) for scholars and pupils. However, when appropriately harnessed, could yield higher levels of satisfaction. This is when you enter the job market with better remuneration packages.


    Tweaking education curricula, taking into consideration levels of utility to whip up your interest for the good or service. This should, therefore, be a prime focus for legislators.


    Inputs such as maximum times you can concentrate and the length of study for a course should be offered without compromising the substance.


    Without a doubt, there would be considerations, at a micro-level to assist in enhancing both marginal and total utility in the education sector.

    Read more about fiscal policy and budgets here

    More life-related uses

    The concept of utility is a lot less ubiquitous as we think and relates to the unsavoury phenomenon of megalomania and why there is greed.
    When levels of self-gratification diminish quickly, it takes longer for those with lower levels of marginal utility to reach a plateau of pleasure.


    Drug addiction, sexual appetites, and fetishes would then kick-in. In such cases, people upgrade the “product or service” that they have already maximized utility in. At that stage, another level of fulfillment would be sought.

    The utility applied to finances

    120x600

    It also explains why you lose a lot of money gambling or investing in stocks. The satisfaction of gaining more for a little outlay will often drive you to take more risk until a level of risk aversion kicks in.


    High-risk investors “called whales”  are now delving into the Crypto market to maximize their utility. They are diverting their funds from property and stocks into digital currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum.


    The saying too much of a good thing is inevitably bad for you applies. It can be countered by diversifying the things that deliver pleasure or satisfaction to you.


    This is to ensure that you do not maximize utility on them too quickly and lose interest.  Worse case, you end up delving into the dangerous territories of addiction.


    Economists need to be relevant, more than ever before. They also need to formulate a means to measure and quantify utility or provide “utils” for at least, the most common goods and services.

    With such a strategy, policy-making, product pricing, and the efficient allocation of resources would be more effortless.

  • Criminal mindedness

    Criminal mindedness

    One fundamental and often ignored view within economics is that humans have the propensity to display irrational behaviour in the decision-making processes.

    Based on this notion, one can conclude that we have a fundamental tendency to act corruptly and be generally criminally-inclined except maybe the virtuous few.

    How advanced our economy or society is, depends on what measures or incentives we enforce to deter or punish criminals.
    In most cases, we find that in countries where punishment is severe (e.g. in Central Europe or Nigeria), the criminals end up moving to less strict countries.
    The economics of crime, especially violent crime experienced in countries like South Africa and Brazil, is something that requires adept research if anything is to be done.
    In the US, studies were conducted to access the impact of legalized abortion on the level of crime. This was discussed in detail in a best-selling book by Levitt and Dubner’s called Freakonomics.
    The study found that legalizing abortion (seen by many as legalized killing equivalent to death sentences) reduces the level of drug abuse and subsequently other criminal activity.

    The real problem

    Perhaps there is no relevance here but for instance, abortion is legal in South Africa yet a high crime rate prevails. So, what’s the problem then?
    Part of the problem lies in the fact that the incentives/benefits of committing crime far outweigh the “costs” and chances of being caught and convicted by the judiciary.
    25046_200x300
    John Nash through his renowned works (well at least amongst economists), devised what he called “game theory” or “the prisoner’s dilemma”.
    Cheating occurs through degrees of severity from a classroom test or examination all the way to the plotting and execution of murder or indirectly killing individuals by selling users addictive drugs.
    Then you have your white-collar crime such as insider trading, corporate espionage (unlawfully acquiring recipes, formulas, and technologies from rival companies).
    Or simply ‘cooking the books’ or siphoning off profits from a company’s coffers.
    Nash’s rationale for such cheating behaviour boils down to the attitude of: ‘if I don’t, someone else will, and leave me with the short end of the stick – so given the option, I’ll always cheat’.
    His explanation is one ‘formally proven’ reason for human ‘irrational’ behaviour – or rather, could we say it is rational if the outcome is to favour the decision-maker in the short or long term? This is instinct is innate in human behaviour of not such a few.

    Crime and law enforcement

    Back to the subject of crime: higher than usual levels has often been blamed on the poverty caused by poor and exclusionary fiscal, social and monetary policies.
    There are of course more layers and underlying factors unique to the history of political climate and resource allocation.
    Further studies (such as that in the Freakonomics book) need to be carried out such as the potential effects of police presence in deterring crime in the diagram below:
    Police officers per 100,000 population by regions and sub-regions (medians)

    Crime deterrant

    Source: www.unodc.org

    Also, highly recommended if you are a law enforcer, economist, government official, or student, is a book entitled Economics of Crime by Erling Eide, Paul H Rubin & Joanna M Shepherd.
    This book covers the theory of public enforcement including probability and severity, fines and imprisonment, repeat offenders, incentives of enforcers, enforcement costs and enforcement errors.
    It might shed some light as to how criminally-inclined people can be dealt with once and for all. Because as we know – whatever government is doing to fight crime now is clearly not really working!

    “When crimes are left alone long enough to fester, a second economy is borne.”

    The proceeds from a ‘secondary’ economy because of criminal activity never benefit society. Even though people like Pablo Escobar were seen by locals (in his Colombian town) as philanthropists, their assistance came at a price. Such contributions which are naturally tax-free generally are referred to in economics as ‘social ills‘.
    A third market is formed – one comprised of the need to feel secure.

    Dealing with the scourge

    But fighting fire with fire (with more guns & police who are sometimes corrupt themselves) will not alone solve the problem.
    Criminals simply become more aggressive when met with a more confrontational approach as seen in South Africa. The Jeppestown (Johannesburg) shoot-out in 2006 for example, left several police officers and criminals dead.
    It’s time to get ’smarter’ about crime and look to the accuracy and conclusive study of human behaviour and the use of incentives.
    As crimes continue to ravage communities, cities and countries, we can question why government officials have relatives who own or have stakes in security companies.
    It basically places less of an ‘incentive’ for officials to do much about crime.
    So, conceivably, those with such vested interests in the third economy would need to be weeded out of the system for crime to be curbed.

    That would be the first major step in order to bring about some rationality to society.
  • Nine Reasons Why Globalization Can’t Be Permanent

    Nine Reasons Why Globalization Can’t Be Permanent

    We spoke about globalization in an earlier post on some general terms – citing that it has taken a different shape or evolved. This article below however, delves deeper and highlights on nine reasons why this evolution will be forced to happen.

    It is so well written, it covers all salient points and asks all the right questions – such as what we have pondered on the validity of GDP as a measure of success. The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) has of late been questioned as the main determinant of intelligence in the advent of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) and soon Artificial Intelligence (AI). Likewise, we must question the accuracy in the way the success (or disguised failures) of a nation is presented, and what we are told is required for this success to materialize.

    We especially loved this analogy of the current world situation and if anything is to be taken from this article, this is it:

    bicycle-analogy

    Again kudos to the author Gail Tverberg for this in-depth piece (featured on her website on 31 Jan 2018). In it, Gail touches on issues such as a population growth, a growing wage-disparity, heavy energy consumption, and the demand for cheaper alternative energy:

    Read about the 9 reasons here:   https://wp.me/p3dRG-b4w

    Also read more on how Globalization has evolved here

    Hope you enjoy it as much as we did, and that it has the same effect it had – getting one to think outside the box and look at the big picture.

  • Globalization 2.0

    Globalization 2.0

    The implementation of globalization has not been without its major flaws. Abolishing it, however, is paramount to anti-socialist behaviour or looking inwards. This concept is against the tendencies of human nature.

    If you read up on any definition of globalization, you will see that the intention was always genuine. The need to integrate and collaborate for the mutual benefit of nations.

    It can, however, like any product (like knowledge), be exploited out of selfish desires and lead to exploitation.

    Of course, it also doesn’t mean that globalization must apply to every sector of your economy.  Some inward investment is always healthy. It should, however, not lead to extreme nationalism for a fear of loss of national identity.

    Trust issues

    The problem, like many others, lies in the hands of politicians who are controlled and dictated to by a handful of large corporations. These ‘corps’ have one and only self-interest – profit, power, and control.

    The main concern for sovereign governments is that ‘giving up’ or sharing one’s technological, innovative, or manufacturing secrets to other countries. The premise is that this would make them ‘vulnerable’.

    The real issue lies in a lack of trust – leading to the notion: “I will not let you know how I do it because you may use it against me – in trade or war”.

    Despite the existence of supposedly ‘compartmentalized’ trading blocs and free trade areas like NAFTA, EU, ECOWAS, SADC, etc, the rate of globalization has sped up significantly in the past decade.

    This is due to boundless advances in information technology as accurately predicted by Neoclassical Growth Theory.

    Information technology has now given us valuable new tools to identify and engage in economic activity.

    Tech provides access to and faster, more informed analysis of information, transfers of assets, and collaboration.

    The impact on finance

    A globalized world means that with the aid of technology, you can buy and sell shares of an Italian firm from a desktop in Namibia!


    You would then only have to deal with the commissions and transaction fees (capital gains tax) locally pertaining to your online trades.

    And think about it, on a micro-level. If globalization is entirely a bad concept then no-one should be using Amazon, eating MacDonalds, or watching Netflix in protest. Hard to imagine, isn’t it?


    We must praise its positive outcomes and work hard against the negative impacts. The negative ones are also giving rise to a new era of extreme nationalism or populism.


    You can only do your bit by promoting and backing policy-makers who can enforce good trade laws.  This would force both local and international competitors to play by the same rules.


    Penalties for financial misconduct should be a lot greater to deter exploitation. Rather, perpetrators still get the proverbial slap on the wrist.


    The creative destruction of the financial system will be brought about by cryptocurrency and its underlying blockchain technology.

    Depending on its uptake, and whether the authorities can legitimize its legality, we may see individuals and governments using decentralized currencies.


    The Venezuelan president is investigating the concept of a national cryptocurrency dubbed ´Petro´. They would use it to alleviate dependency on (heavily interest-ridden) loans.

Translate »

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.