Absolutely, you're right; there's no getting away from human nature; thats why the idea of communism had such a hard time in practice.
So, we cant swim against the tide, we cant swim too far out with the tide; it's a dilemma alright. On Jun 28, 3:41 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think you can factor out greed and competition/lust for power > whether you are talking about conquest or the accumulation of wealth. > History is replete with examples- the challenge to papal wealth and > control, the aristocracy, colonial rulers, national tyrants whose > replacements sank in the same rut. It is a moral dilemma as far as to > how to stabilize humanity with such various lacks or talents. > Education and democracy were supposed to balance the odds- morals and > mercy included. How has that worked out? A nation becomes what it > admires. > > On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing to the > > communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of "equity". > > > Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is about man > > pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling by-product is > > the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities of wealth > > (and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue desirable) feature, > > as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we can get into > > the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's"). (Re)distribution is > > a political initiative to manage these disparities through taxation. > > And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the top", but really > > as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even greater value; > > i think that this is what tends to appear as the great "visible hand". > > > Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one of the very > > few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so beguiling and > > difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to boom to...:) > > > On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
