Feeds

Be the next tech hotshot – by staying the hell away from regulators

Must-read essay on why we'll be on a private isle well before your cure is on sale

The essential guide to IT transformation

Column Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things – that's Adam Smith, by the way.

I'm often left rather scratching my head as I read the latest screeds on the new new economics. You know, all this lovely stuff about how late industrial capitalism can, and should, change into a more caring, localised system.

What people come up with seems to be very much like old economics, although the authors of papers on the subject would be horrified if you were to point this out to them.

Take this paper [PDF] on “ultra micro economics”. It has all of the usual right-on backing: it takes a fair amount of evidence from the New Economics Foundation (nef – they insist there's a shortage of capitals at present. Also stands for Not Economics, Frankly). It is essentially arguing that lots of small-scale business is good for a locality. Well, yes, it is.

We do indeed know that it is small and upstart businesses that produce the majority of employment in the economy. We also know that it is those same two that produce all of the net increase in jobs in the economy. Large companies tend to reduce their headcount over time: jobs growth comes from the new and small ones growing up in the interstices. All of this is well known and entirely standard economics.

Given that the paper is based on nef material, they manage to – at least in my opinion – get things such as comparative advantage wrong. This is something Ricardo detailed in 1817, so you would think that people would get it right by now. From the paper:

It [ultra-micro economics] is also a direct challenge to the idea of comparative advantage as the only design for reviving urban economies. This doctrine claims to provide a blueprint for local economic revival via specialization, competing with similar places until they are all exactly the same.

Its major drawback is that it provides too few winners and far too many losers, especially when it is combined by the extreme reduction of global competition, and the way the few mega-winners carve out the world between them.

Comparative advantage does talk about specialisation, yes, but it isn't stating that a village or some other area should become solely a specialist in anything at all. Rather, it's really stating that we should all do what we're least bad at.

If we're all doing what we are that least bad at then there will be more of everything for us to share through trade. But it's this point made in a Guardian piece about the paper that really has me doing that head scratching: one of the ultra-micro heroes, Pam Warhurst of Incredible Edible said, for example, that the "government will spend millions of pounds on a campaign to eat five a day".

Instead, the local GP centre in Todmorden, West Yorkshire, used wasted scrubland outside to encourage people to plant vegetables and fruit for everyone to use. "It helps if you don't ask permission," she said.

Well, yes, and how is that different from what Adam Smith said up there at the top, taken from Wealth of Nations – the book of his that few bother to read? Or as he didn't say but meant, bugger off and let people get on with it themselves.

The paper goes on to point out that we don't have local community banking because it's really damn hard to fight through the regulatory thicket to be able to open up a new bank. And there's little point in trying to ask for government help about anything at this scale simply because national government doesn't think at this sort of scale.

All of which is entirely true and is very much the old economics explanation for why you don't actually want government at any level trying to micro-manage the economy. It's simply not very good at doing so.

Next gen security for virtualised datacentres

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
No, thank you. I will not code for the Caliphate
Some assignments, even the Bongster decline must
Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
Founder (and internet passport fan) now says privacy is precious
TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit
Chocolate Factory hits back at firm for suing customers
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
You can try turning them off and on again
Facebook, Google and Instagram 'worse than drugs' says Miley Cyrus
Italian boffins agree with popette's theory that haters are the real wrecking balls
Sit tight, fanbois. Apple's '$400' wearable release slips into early 2015
Sources: time to put in plenty of clock-watching for' iWatch
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.