Debunking “monopoly capital”.

Refocusing on the essence of creating wealth and value for all.

One cannot legitimately apply the word “monopoly” to generic concepts such as “capital”. I’ve been guilty myself, and it’s nothing more than sloppy thinking or emotive spin if it is aimed at the multi-dimensional accumulation and deployment of money. That has many forms: governments, central banks, financial services and banks, institutional investors, holding companies, multi-nationals and very large companies. If “monopoly” means being a protected sole supplier, that certainly cannot apply to the above, apart perhaps from the first two. Ownership is even more widely dispersed than control.

The real issue is the increasing concentration of capital control in fewer hands, with most behaving in the same way and to the extent of exacerbating inequality, exclusion and social discord under the pretext of an academic hallucinogen that capital is scarce. (See article here). This has been covered many times. Enough to be confident with the generalisation that in rent seeking and chasing capital gains, many players have diverted efforts away from funding the production of goods and services, or value creation. This has virtually closed the taps of “trickle down” and advancing inclusive economic growth. It has spawned another fanciful folly – that monetary machinations and policies can generate prosperity.

Small wonder then that most believe that if you control capital, you control everything, including the destiny of a country. That reflects a basic misunderstanding of wealth creation itself: that it is about printing money; or the outcome of a lucky strike at a hedge fund casino; cooked in a financial advisor’s brew; or that it is solely embodied in profit. And then we miss the majesty of economics: that wealth is created by usefulness to others and concretised in legitimate commercial transaction.   

We do not need scare tactics and deflections of “radical economic transformation” to reboot our economy. As I wrote in my previous article, a giant leap can be achieved by radical government transformation. But capital concentration certainly also has to be addressed to promote inclusive growth. That’s being interrogated on a global scale, including global finance, fickle capital mobility and tax evasion. It would be wise to tap those experiences before rushing to controls and prescriptions with a giant meat cleaver in the hands of a predator slashing at some personified spook.

In retelling the untold story of the ancient and still benevolent design of the wealth creation process, I have extrapolated a Contribution Account^© or Inclusivity Statement^© for the mining industry, based on the PWC 2016 survey. I have had to make some assumptions regarding personal income tax and depreciation, and roughly rounded the figures to make indexing to R100 easier. None detract from the essential conclusions. 

MINING 2016 (INDEXED)
Revenue	R300
Outside supplies	R200
Wealth created	R100
SHARED
Employees	R53
State	R22
Reinvested	R21
Owners’ dividend	R  4

Mining is volatile but the picture has not changed all that much since the decline in commodity prices. In addition, in my own experience over many years with many companies, as well as the national statistics, the principles can be applied at a national average. The conclusion is quite simple: in most cases owners as a group receive the least cash benefit from an enterprise.

In the above example, 2/3^rds of the revenue goes to outside suppliers – creating multiple opportunities for others. Then, for every R4 investors receive in cash, workers (including management) get R53, and the state receives R22. There’s always some ambivalence around “reinvestment” which technically belongs to the owners, but it has a contributory nature in ensuring sustainability.

What is the thinking behind the proposed mining charter in trying to mess with that model? What possesses organised labour to be oblivious to the delicate balance of wealth distribution and its impact on wealth creation? What tempts policy makers, sometimes with the blessing of organised commerce, to hamstring it with invasive transformation surgery and prescriptions? And wherefrom the populist business bashing rhetoric?

By their very nature, private enterprises are the most inclusive of all collectives. They can be made even more so if the participants decide by themselves and for themselves how wealth creation should be distributed. They have more power to do so than they may believe, and where not, should be demanding it.

That’s not to say that within the model itself there are no legitimate concerns about its make-up and behaviour – including pay disparities, people development and empowerment, and demographic representation. But if those concerns threaten the viability, flexibility and sustainability of the model, it will destroy wealth creation itself. Then prosperity and jobs evaporate. It also goes some way in explaining why capital finds more attractive suitors than investment in productive capacity.

But that’s not the whole truth. Business too has failed to subscribe fully to the wisdom of ages that contribution creates reward. It defines and motivates itself by maximum reward, adding insult to injury by narrowing that focus to one stakeholder, the shareholder. In that it has invited a considerable degree of constraining prescriptions; business bashing and declining sympathy of common folk who, at one time or another have experienced the blinkered business view as customer neglect or exploitation. The damage has been substantial – in reputation, unrealistic expectations and flexibility.

But that can be turned around quickly and effortlessly by adopting the principles of a common purpose in service to customers and a common fate in sharing the fortunes that befall it. On the contribution side, the disastrous monster of the 80’s – the agency model, which encouraged executives to “think like owners” and rewarded them excessively for doing so – can be converted into “think like customers”. That supports income or turnover in most non primary producers. If you add a further discipline of prudence in outside purchases, you have created the most powerful dynamic of increasing wealth, and therefore rewards for all. You can see this dynamic work in the first three lines of the above table: increase revenue by 10%; decrease outside costs by 10%, and wealth creation jumps by 50%!

But the real problem lies in wealth distribution. Obsession with reward turns the model on its head, and invites all kinds of external and powerful prescriptions from government, organised labour and capital.  It then becomes inflexible and often parasitic.  There are two simple conditions for optimal wealth distribution – meet the legitimate expectations of all of the stakeholders and ensure continued contribution. (See graphic example here). These can be managed and indeed, in my experience, are quite malleable if the decisions are left to the stakeholders themselves. Emphasis on wealth creation before distribution, and making the latter as flexible and sustainable as possible, is the most promising inclusive solution to job creation and retention.

At the very least, it will detract from the misguided notion that owning or controlling capital creates wealth.

The hole in the jobs bucket.

And the three dimensions of radical government transformation.

If you promised the Government that you could create 48-thousand new jobs in a few months they would dance at your feet. Yet, that is the number of jobs that were lost in the formal non-agricultural sector in the first quarter of this year, according to the latest Quarterly Employment Survey.

What it reflects is that counteracting all the efforts to create jobs, are those being lost where they exist – like filling a bucket that has a big hole. It underscores the fallacy of focusing on job creation rather than job retention and being caught in an endless spiral of creation and destruction. If you understand why jobs are being lost, you will know what prevents you from creating more. Job retention demands a shift in policies, approach, attitudes and behaviour at many levels – all of which imply sacrificing some vested interests and political capital. The main causes behind job losses are systemic and behavioural in both the public and private sectors, as well as a volatile external environment. In responding to this environment, the two indispensable, mutually supportive keys are flexibility and tempered expectations. 

Global financial headlines remind us daily of a world undergoing radical economic transformation. The anti-establishment uprising seen in many countries is challenging the legitimacy of both government and economic power and has blurred ideological divisions as well as theoretical prescriptions for the role of the state and the private sector, particularly capital concentration. For a long time, it seemed to have been a stunning omission of the ruling party, not to have connected these dots to its own radical economic transformation agenda, and instead made it a spectre and divisive project.

But that may have changed. The strategic outline delivered by ANC NEC member, Nathi Mthethwa at the policy conference, clearly reflected that insight and will hopefully transform the narrative to reflect:

·        The gravity and complexity of a global struggle for inclusivity and fragmentation of economic power; (see previous article here.)

·        The role South Africa can play in being an innovator, contributor and beneficiary of global experiences, which includes inputs from international economic thought leaders.

·        Eliminating race or gender as a contributing factor, albeit a feature (or as Mthethwa put it “form”) in South Africa. Burying the term “white monopoly capital” is a good start.

·        And above all – the need for power fragmentation in both government and the private sector as a key factor for flexibility.

The last point is the difficult one for governments not only to recognise, but willingness to return power to the people in a real and tangible form. The concept that governments represent all of the people, all of the time, is patent nonsense -- even more so in a state where bureaucracy is often driven by self-gratification and power. If fragmentation of economic power simply means transferring power from private hands to government, then on the evidence of both historic and current experience, it will be the greater of two evils.

It is the outcome of that debate that will profoundly affect inclusivity, flexibility and expectations, and the ability to both retain and create new jobs. Although mutually linked, the approaches are different for government and the private sector. This article deals with the former, and a future column will examine the latter.

I am more convinced than ever that radical government transformation has to go hand in hand with RET and can do far more in changing the economic destiny of the country. The fact that we are suffering from economic pneumonia because the ruling party has a Gupta virus, points to a self-evident truth: the inordinate influence, invasiveness and power of bureaucracy. It is excessive even for a developmental state and because of that one can reach another simple conclusion: its bears a large share of responsibility for whatever ails the country. This power has three dimensions:

Physical size and share of the economy. Globally, governments have become “fat and lazy”, according to Economist, Dawie Roodt. With our government expenditure at about one third of GDP we are not amongst the most obese (see World Bank statistics here), and not totally out of line with the world average. Ultimately, size does not matter. It is about affordability and action. We are worse than lazy. There is deeply rooted and debilitating patronage; an oversized cabinet and employee contingent; poor and incoherent leadership; scandals; inefficiencies; flawed service delivery; wasteful expenditure, and corruption. The belief that government must be as small as possible to avoid crowding out private initiative is an oversimplification and not a universal truth. What really counts is whether its actions support private initiative, while still countering social imbalances.

Prescriptions and regulations. These have far greater impact than can be measured in standard statistics. Even a superficial analysis of all bureaucratic impediments is beyond the scope of this article. Even less so, and perhaps more futile, is challenging some of the regulatory holy cows to “correct past imbalances”, and the counter-productive effect they have had on inclusivity and employment. It simply makes no sense to focus on inclusion of one group and discourage others that may have skills, experience and capital and whose deployment encourages further job creation. One recent example is the proposed new mining charter which the industry estimates could see as many as 100 000 job losses.

Political posturing and populist rhetoric. When you have become as powerful and invasive as the South African government has, you simply have to watch your mouth and actions. I would argue that this now overshadows all of the above. You will find the footprint of rhetoric and irrational decisions in most of our recent economic setbacks, including an undervalued currency, disinvestment and ratings downgrades. They are triggered by a loose cannon in the President who does not distinguish between a parliamentary democracy and constitutionalism; a ruling party in meltdown; threatening and divisive interpretations of land reform and expropriation, and constant deflective racial innuendo. Even the more comical kite fliers such as the Public Protector on monetary policy, have a serious impact on economic prosperity. Ill informed Market response to an ill-informed policy discussion about Reserve Bank ownership is another example. The burying of the term “white monopoly capital” may be a reflection of growing sensitivity towards this third dimension. Clearly much more has to be done to change the mood.

A huge, ominous and potentially overwhelming cloud remains. Despite all the arguably good intentions of ANC policy, and a fall back to the more palatable National Development Plan, there is still a massive lack of trust. Trustworthiness is an imperative even for autocratic governments; not only from its supporters but also from its opponents, critics and society at large. The government’s critically large trust deficit (see graphic here) is now at centre stage. It is perhaps even beyond redemption. Opponents may hail this as an opportunity for regime change, but distrust is contagious and not easily restored even after a change in leadership or government. It is also a significant contributor to the hole in the jobs bucket.

It is that which needs radical attention.