I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism- which flopped. Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to be in charge who may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but this is not a voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at the top for the prime reason of maintaining power.
On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm...fine points all! > > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the other way > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the "growth" > imperative in contemporary economics. > > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis". I agree that the > > encouragement you refer to > > is desirable. I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that growth is > > mandatory for our economy > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the ability of > > the natural system to > > balance itself at its natural rate. I am not convinced that we have a solid > > enough understanding > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of systemic > > health, rationally process > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which conditions > > we should encourage. > > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant... > > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think there is > > reason to be optimistic. > > But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic of > > having 20/20 vision through > > the rear view mirror. Economic policy decisions that are both long term and > > aggressive(such as increased > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the aims are > > likely destructive and very > > unpredictable. In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they may be > > more predictable, but we are not > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated. We are comparatively > > wide open(global), and playing > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago. ...and from > > my perspective, we don't > > know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though we should be > > looking long term. ...and by > > long term, I mean more than two quarters out! > > > Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...! :-)- Hide quoted > > text - > > - Show quoted text -
