The “Proprietary Fund” is considered one among the various examples in which Production for Profit and Production for Utility are closely intertwined. On paper, it resembles a Fund related to the so-called “Public Sector” (Read: Production for Utility). In actual practice, however, the Proprietary Fund is meant to be operated in a manner akin to that of the so-called “Private Sector” (Read: Production for Profit). Parliament employs the Proprietary Fund in order to govern the economic activities of “Public Utilities,” which are any economic organizations that Parliament has operating under Production for Utility. Such “Public Utilities” may be nationalized or partially privatized in a “Public-Private Partnership (P3),” which oftentimes involves a government organization owning its related program and letting a privatized commercial firm run it on their behalf.  

The precise type of economic activities conducted by a Public Utility is broad to encompass anything that is capable of being nationalized and operated by Parliament for its own purposes as opposed to those of Civil Society. This explains the political opposition to nationalization among specific Liberal Capitalist factions within Neoliberalism. When Parliament decides to nationalize something, it is essentially purchasing the Private Properties-as-Wealth, Assets and Liabilities of an economic organization and using it to enrich itself in the process. The personnel fall under the leadership of the bureaucracy overseeing a government organization.

In the context of Parliamentary Democracy, one is asked to wonder how such decisions by Parliament will benefit the Social Utility of Civil Society. If Parliament decides to perform economic activities for its own benefit, what does that say about the shared paradigm between Production for Profit and Production for Utility? Does one not realize that Parliament has not changed anything in the slightest except to adopt the roles performed by a privatized commercial firm?

The accountant should realize the implications of those questions within their own financial ledgers, especially when studying the Proprietary Funds of such economic organizations. Thus, two variants of Proprietary Funds are of interest in this Entry, the “Enterprise Fund” and the “Internal Service Fund.”  

• The Enterprise Fund refers to the Quantity of Kapital that is given to Parliament by Civil Society in order to obtain a particular good or service. Each Private Citizen from Civil Society is expected to pay a fee in exchange for the good or service.
• The Internal Service Fund refers to the Quantity of Kapital that government organizations must spend to obtain goods and services from each other. Any government organization requiring the goods or services of another is expected to pay a fee in exchange for them.

The key distinguishing characteristic shared by both Proprietary Funds is the buyer within the transactional sale. Enterprise Funds record the Kapital earned from Civil Society, whereas the Internal Service Fund denotes the Kapital earned from the government organizations that act on behalf of Parliament. Since government organizations are going to be funded by Parliament anyway, it is natural to expect them to pay for their functions and receive them from other government organizations. But chances are, the government organizations rendering those Public Utilities will probably be relying on some level of support from privatized commercial firms fulfilling the terms of a “Government Contract.”

All of this validates the Author’s suspicions about the relationship between Production for Profit and Production for Utility, a conclusion that was posited back in The Third Place (1^st Ed.). The pervasiveness of Neoliberalism in economic life, particularly in the Western world, is made possible by a delicate balance of Economic Liberalization, Social Liberalization, and Political Liberalization. One finds this relationship inherent in the coalescence of Liberal Capitalist factions in Parliament that constitute as the “Center-Left,” the “Center,” and “Center-Right” on a Left-Right Political Spectrum. It is a relationship that stems from the philosophical underpinnings of Neoliberalism, that “State of Natural Rights” which came to fruition during the Enlightenment.

With Neoliberalism’s “State of Natural Rights” in mind, it is rather unsurprising to find Liberal Capitalist factions constantly debating in circles over the most ideal balance of Production for Profit and Production for Utility. The accountant is made aware of this in the financial statements of the Proprietary Fund.

Categories: Work-Standard Accounting Practices

Tags: Accounting, Economics, Finance, John Maynard Keynes, Keynesianism, Milton Friedman, Monetarism, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Socialist Finance, Taxes, Third Place, Work-Standard