I do believe that "competency" figures into economics, Ray, even though
"scarcity" is a more basic concept. In a capitalist society, the competent
take scarce resources and combine them into uses that serve their self-interest
- i.e. that pay off to the maximum extent. In so doing, they hire people and
thereby serve the economic interests of society. That is what happens under
capitalism. Under socialism, the resources are combined not to serve
individual interests but rather communal interests --- or so the theory might
go.
Another concept that is often left out is morality, the "golden rule" kind of
thing, like you wouldn't do anything to hurt other people just as you wouldn't
want to hurt yourself. In capitalist societies, laws are enacted in place of
morality -- e.g. the now gone Glass-Steagal or the US law that prevented
corporate interests from buying politicians and converting them into lobbyists.
There is another way of building morality into economic behaviour. I did a job
in the Los Santos area of Costa Rica a few years ago and what amazed me there
was the huge array of cooperatives active in the area. It seemed that everyone
wanted to help everyone else. Why? I attributed it to the influence of the
huge church in the middle of each community -- love thy neighbour (or be
eternally damned?) etc.
I'd better quit here because next thing I say may be something silly or even
sillier than what I've said already. Getting tired.
Regards,
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Harrell
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] American economy
One thing neither of you are taking into account is term limits. We are
guaranteed an amateur president who just learns the office and leaves. It
doesn't even work for mayors. Term limits on Congress guarantees short term
thinking. Term limits are also used as a weapon by the right wing to demean
the very idea of government itself.
It doesn't help when ex-government employees lift their legs on government
either. I've worked in the private sector for fifty years and grew up in the
public sector with both parents in public education. I've always defended
public education and the need for a private sector but I certainly know the
problems in both. I would argue that it would help if people didn't
"think" as if they weren't a part of all this but had a stake in helping it
work and making it work for everyone.
No one seems to see the problem in the basic premise of economics that is
grounded in the "scarcity" construct rather than in a "competency" construct
and the development of the "Field of Plenty." Everyone says that solar
power isn't economical. The implication is that it's too expensive when the
reality is that what is free is NOT economical at all. No one want to
purchase sand if they live on the beach and no one wants to buy castor bean
beer either just because its scarce. The very idea of business is the idea
of winners and losers. I would argue that to complain when the religion of
the market effects the government negatively and yet refuse to question the
religion itself as a system, is to make the choice to be a loser in the game
of life.
Good to hear from you Ed and Keith I enjoyed your post about the Chinese.
Well done. The sole qualm I had was about women's suffrage and the roots of
the problem. I think it has more to do with the private sector having too
much power, too little regulation by the society and term limiting the
governors so they don't have time to build power groups that accomplish things.
The issue of morality (cronyism) is a problem of religion and personal
judgment. It would help if the society could learn the elements that go into
teaching both and teach them. Then give people a decent time to learn the
Art of Government. If one religion had too many lawbreakers perhaps we
could apply the rule that they apply to teachers who fail. Cut their tax
deduction until they do a better job with their constituency or teach the
foundations of morality and critical judgment to everyone in public school.
REH
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 4:44 PM
To: Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] American economy
Keith, I'll just have to take you at your word on the actual rate of US GDP
growth. It may well be higher than the 1.8% Reich claims it is. However, many
of the other things he mentions, and which others have mentioned, suggest an
economy in decline and perhaps in severe decline. Everything seemed to be
looking up until about the 1970s and then ever so many things started going
down hill after that. The best book I have on the reasons for it is Hacker's
and Pierson's "Winner Take All Politics" which lays out how the rich got very
much richer, the middle class became eroded and the poor became poorer from the
mid-1970s to the present. I should take another look at the book, but some of
the most significant trends H&P (and Riech) mention relate to changing
political power, enabling the rich to control politicians to make decisions to
their advantage (e.g. Bush tax cuts, financial donations to politicians making
them, in effect, lobbyists for finance and industry) and the politically
fostered decline of unions. As well, the US government and many state
governments have become hugely indebted and therefore greatly constrained with
regard to the kinds of stimulus programs they can launch. All in all, whether
the rate of growth is as Reich says or a little higher, the US does not appear
to have much of a chance of a return to the kind of growth, hope and prosperity
we witnessed in the decades following WWII.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION ; Ed Weick
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] American economy
Ed,
At 15:09 02/06/2011, you wrote:
Robert Reich's take on what has happened to the USA since world war II.
http://truthout.org/truth-about-american-economy/1306953884
This is a pretty accurate account of the American economy since '45.
However, towards the end he writes:
<<<<
Democrats, meanwhile, are behaving as if they're powerless to affect the
economy even though a Democrat occupies the White House and his appointees run
the federal government.
>>>>
. . . and then gives no hint of what policy the Democrats should be
advocating! OK, it's true enough that they don't have a policy (except more
public spending which would only make the deficit worse) but that he -- one of
the most articulate economists on the left -- hasn't been able to sketch out
something that's anywhere near relevant is eloquent enough.
But there's another point that intrigues me for which Reich is not to
blame. This is the figure of 1.8% that's officially quoted for present GDP
growth. This cannot be so. In America, as in the UK and Europe, the average
income and well being of ordinary folk has actually been declining for decades.
And yet GDP has supposedly been tanking along at anything between 3% and 5%
p.a. for year after year! There's clearly a discrepancy here of at least 2%.
Far from being 1.8% today, it ought to be 0% or even a negative figure. This
is pure spin by government statisticians and economists.
Much the same applies in the case of official figures for inflation --
except the fix is in the opposite direction. To be realistic, at least 2% or 3%
should be added to the officially quoted rate. This is why Bernanke is so
ambiguous as to know what he's going to do next. He knows that America is not
far away from galloping inflation. "Can I get away with yet another dose of
QE", he must be asking himself. He must be very fearful that if he does so he
might go down in the history books as the person who transformed the Great
Recession into the Great Depression Mark II.
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
