Skip to main content

Masticating on McKay Part One - Limited Liability


As all three of you know Iain McKay, librarian of the workers' revolution and keeper of the one truth, is my favourite person ever.

Several of his pieces are published on libcom.org so I couldn't help but browse. This will be a series with this top bit repeated through each post. Sorry for that. I'm unresponsive to my public :p

~~~

In a piece called The Grand Bluff: Private profits, social risks our truth-teller gives a quick history of limited liability and why it's a bad thing; namely that it decreases owners' exposure to the risks the businesses they own take on.

Correct! Limited liability is one state-granted monopoly privilege (along with organisational legal personhood, patents, and copyrights) that pretty much all anti-statists oppose. By describing the situation from the perspective of risk McKay even gets the reason why it's economically problematic right.

Inevitably, however, there are some things I must complain about; there wouldn't be any point doing this if I didn't have a few pennies to toss in the well...

First is the fact that the chance of gain is not "unlimited", as a quick perusal of business failure rates will make clear. [2]

Next is the obscene generalisation that "Capitalism has developed precisely by externalising risk and placing the burden onto..., ultimately, society as a whole" when discussing, specifically, the finance industry. The construction, tech, security, entertainment or energy industries are not party to any of this - well, maybe construction indirectly, but even then that's two industries out of thousands. [3]

My third and final contention is that a government bailout, while it represents government shielding certain people against the risks they face, is not a necessary outgrowth of limited liability, otherwise why didn't Iceland's government bailout its stricken banks? In Iceland, the banks went out of business and that was that.

In the overwhelming majority of countries in the world the kind of government activism exercised in 2008 to 2009 is not generally seen even in finance, and is certainly more-or-less unheard of in any other industries. [4]

Judging by the example of Iceland, allowing the banks to go out of business didn't lead to anarcho-socialism anyway, but rather just a sturdier financial system. In the UK it was Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds, HBOS and Northern Rock that were brought low, whereas Barclays and HSBC were by and large unexposed and never required any government assistance. Between them these two, Santander, and a few up-and-coming smaller banks could have taken on all the customers of the stricken UK banks without much incident. [5]

P.S

The article seems to confuse Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP) and Limited Liability Companies (Ltd), though this criticism may be unwarranted as McKay might only be talking about the businesses that offer sstock market services, which are mostly LLPs

~~~

[1]
http://libcom.org/library/grand-bluff-private-profits-social-risks

[2]
http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/

[3]
http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf

[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_financial_crisis

[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package#Participating_banks

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zeitardation

A Youtuber called axe863 made a video in which he used scientific, mathematical and statistical common-sense to deliver the KO that the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement so richly deserved. If his approach seems weird and unconventional it's because he's not attacking from a tradition neoclassical or Keynesian perspective. Axe863's poison is complexity economics, something a good deal more dangerous to ideas like TVP and TZM. [ 2 ] Now to a couple of comment threads from below the video that I thought could od with being replicated just in case they get deleted at source! ~~~ AstralLuminary 1 year ago Why can't we generalize the consumption patterns of middle-income people in the western world, set our constraints equal to the amount of localized resources, and the rate of resource recovery, derive a population growth model that would be sustainable to said consumption patterns, and derive the necessary quantifiable amount of work required to expen...
Post a Comment
Read more

RIP Macroeconomics

This post has no intellectual rigour, but I'm posting it anyway, because neither does macroeconomics. Most economists love spending all day doing macro, preferring it to the prosaic small-scale world of microeconomics. This is where the brazen hypocrisy of many heterodox folks will make itself known, as they decry the fallacies of composition rife within neoclassical economics and then go away and commit the same daft mistakes themselves (sometimes quite well disguised) using aggregates of demand, supply, and labour time. Further friction for modern economists can be had when contending with the tripartite division of economics into land, labour, capital, and the action of classes (the 'class' praxis) of the owners of those three economic resources. So, to all of macroecon... you're drunk. Go home and rethink your life.* * Yes I know I just committed a fallacy of reification.
Post a Comment
Read more

Doomer Eternal?

Youtuber Sarah Z talks about the Doomers, those who despair of the world. I am not trying to criticize Sarah Z's take since it is remarkably similar to mine, but I will dump my thoughts below anyway. [ 1 ] ~ ~ ~ The media has broadcast nothing but wall-to-wall doom-and-gloom for a-hundred years and then some. If things feel more hopeless now it's because so much of that media is social media generated by us, so that we are sharing the doom-and-gloom meme with each other AS WELL AS getting it from the mainstream media. Human life is in less peril than ever before (barring the possibility of WW3 between China & Russia v. NATO & SEATO) as economic development makes comfortable civilized living more and more accessible to more and more people every year, and the carbon intensity of every unit of GDP is continually declining. CO2 emissions could plausibly lead to specific calamities with identifiable bodycounts in the near future, and preventing CO2 emissions by the one plau...
Post a Comment
Read more